Handbook For Marine Geotechnical Engineering

L/'
Handbook for
Marine Geotechnical Engineering
00
!6
D5
Technical Editor
LI
Karl Rocker, Jr.
March 1985
DEEP OCEAN TECHNOLOGY
'I
NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

PORT HUENEME, CA 93043
85
Approed for public release; distribution unlimited.
8:6
043
PrCoTOt-At'.."HIS SHEET
' ci
LEVEL
IN,'vENfO-RY
S~~~DOCUMENTr IDENTICIO
-idocl
nnt hasboen apprxod
public releoaa cd gala; lt.

dlUibudon Is unlimited.
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
ACCESSION FOR
D,, c
NTIS
DTIC
GR.i-4
QT
UNAOINOUNt2ED
AIELECTE
JUSnFICATnON
... ... . . .
S..
AU
-!
1 2' 198
BY
DIS'llBDrTION/
AVAILABILrYcCODES
D,r
AVAIL AND/OR SPECIAL
DISTRIBUT1ONVSAIMP
(Y-
__DATE
RETURNED
DATE RECEIVED IN DTIC
REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED NO.
PHOOGRAPH THIS SHEET AND RETURN TO DTICDDAC

DrIC f9.L.A
70A
"-",
"
"
,D'CUMT ROCESSING SHEET
PREVIOUS
EDITION MAY
SOCK
IS'EXHAUSTED.
BE USED UNTIL.,,,
Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF THIS PAGE Wkw DWO
.I.Ened)REDIS
UC
REPORT DOCUMENTAT;ON PAGE
ON
BEFORECOPLTIGORM
2. GOVT ACC2SSION NO. 3. MECIPICNT'S CATALOG MU&IUER
N-ro
U"6161
DN 987083
TITLE tods"Wbitio)
4.
C. TYPE OF
Handbook for Marine GeqL echnical

Engineering-Deep Ocean Technology
REPORT 6 P919100 COVERED
Final
-Oct 1979 - Dec 1983
.
6! PEaRFORMIN
7.
AUT"MO(.j
ORG. REPOrT NummnR
6. CONTRACT 0OR GRANT NUMOER(.J
Kar~l Rocker, Jr., Technical Editor

9.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME
AND .00CtESS
to.
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory

Port Huenieme, CA 93043
PE 637 13N
2.11001
11I. CONTROLLING OFFICE MNAM AND ADDRESS
IS.
Washington, DC
20362
MONMITORING AGENCY NAMCE& ADORESUIP1
REPORT OATE
March 1985
Naval Sea Systems Command

14.
PROGRAM ELEMEINT. PRO ECT. TASK

AREA & WORNUNIT NUNSERSI
IVNE~%4AO
'3
Ififfter. NInl
C..te..jiin
Off-C.)
IS.
SECURITYV CLASS. (of 060 .pMtj
Unclassified
IS.OCLASSIVICATION'DOWNGRAOINd
SCHEDULE
19.
OISTRIUUTION STA'?CMENT lotI thll R*p.fI)
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
17.
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (04 Me obeftec owo,"
in Block M. At -dlofo...
Anfi
ASPA9)
IS9. SUPOLEMENKTARYNOTIES
IS.
KEY WORDS (COg.U...
M IOf..
5155
IlRt..O
SHrf
555
4104
I #~#(Y
AV
90"
N
geotechnics, marine soils, sediments, engineering properties

ocean technology, ocean engineering, 3ite surveying, seiamic
profiling, penetrometers-, side-scan~ sonar, foundations, anchors,
sampling, coring. gilea. Mang q~~e
OSTMSYACT Coem...r an ro.aw. *Ad* H "etteOSWt Red5559
AIp
tptgmanl~
bflock,Ew
This handbook discusses the application of engineering tetdhniques and scientific knowledge to the' investigation of seafloor materials, 'their characteristics, and theirresponses
to foundation and mooring loads. Its prim~ary thrust is with.
problems engineers will encounter beyond the continental shelf
or below 600 feet but the information is also applicable to
shallow water tasia.
*
00
','OM1473
EYU@IN@Sil@SIt3Unclassified
SSCURITY Cl.AUfCBjAIOU 00 TNIS VAE
:39
w 9
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Much of the background material for the Handbook for Marine
Geotechnical Engineering was developed by the Naval Civil Engineering
Laboratory (NCEL).
These materials were updated and supplemented with
experience from the private sector by a number of contractors. Initial
,-diting and consolidation of the chapters was carried out by Brian Watt
Associates, Inc.
Technical review of the Handbook was also made by
Dr. Robert H. Mayer, Jr. (U.S. Naval Academy) and Mr. Homa J. Lee. The
primary contributor for each of the chapters is as follows:
Chapter
1
2
3
4
Brian Watt Associates, Inc., Houston, TX

The Earth Technology Corporation, Long Beach, CA
Prof. I. Noorany, San Diego State Univ., San Diego, CA
The Earth Technology Corporation, L6ng Beach, CA
Woodward-Clyde Consulta nts, Santa Ana, CA
Brian Watt Associates, Inc., Houston,

Mr. H.J. Lee, U.S. Geological Survey,
"7
8
9
10
11
:::i:
-.
-i
Primary Contributor
TX
TX
TX
Menlo Park, CA
Mr. N.J. Atturio, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory,
Port Hueneme, CA
Dr. D.A. Sangrey, Carnegie-Mellon Univ. , Pitts. PA
CONTENTS
Page,
Chapter 11.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
INTRODUCTION ......................
.....................................
OBJECTIVE .............................................................
.. 1-1
HANDBOOK ORGANIZATION . ......................................................
1-1
SELECTION OF FOUNDATION/ANCHOR TYPE ...........
...........................
.. 1-3
REFERENCES
.............................................................
1-6
Chapter 2 - SITE SURVEY AND IN-SITU TESTING ................
"2.1
"
2.2
2-1
INTRODUCTION
2-1
2.1.1
Purpose
2.1.2
Factors Influencing the Site Survey ..........
2.3.6
.......
..... ...
.......................
.. 2-1
...................
Information Sources ..................

Typical Ocean Soils . ...................
REGIONAL SURVEY .................

2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
2-1
.. . .. . .. .. . .. .
PRELIMINARY STUDY .........
"2.2.2
2.4
............................
2.11.uros.....................................................-
2.2.1
2.3
1-1
.........
2-3
...............................
.............................
2-3
2-4
......................................
2`12
..
General ..................
.....................................
Seismic Profiling ................
.................................
Limited Sampling ............................................
Side-Scan Sonar .....
.................................
Visjal Observation ..............
................................
2-12
2-12
....... 2-14
2-14
.. 2-14
........
........................
Survey Line Spacing. ..............
2-14
SITE-SPECIFIC SURVEY .....................................................

2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2-1s
General ........
..............................
Shallow Sampling ...... ...........................................
Deep Sampling .........................
Sample Handling ...........
.....................
........
.........
...........................
. ..............
2-15
2-16
2-19
2-20
..
IN-SITU TESTING ...........................................................
S,2.5
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3
2.5.4
2.5.5
2.5.6
2-21
General .............................................
. ...........
2-21
Vane Shear Tests .................
......................
........
2-22
Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) ......
............................
. ..2-23
Pressuremeter Tests ........
.......................................
2-25
Dynamic Penetrometer ............................. ..........
......
2-25
Borehole Logging Techniques . .......................................... 2-25
2.6 SEISMICITY SURVEY .......

...... ......
....
..
. ............
.........
-.- . REFERENCES . . . .............................................. ...
2.7
.........
2.8 SYMBOLS ............................................................
*
Chapter 3 - LABORATORY DETERMINATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES ...........
3.1
"-'"
3.2
3. .1 Sc
. .
'
..
.
...
...
.
.
r"""............
m.........
....................
3-1
.....
.. . . .
....
3-
3"1I
3-1
........................
Classification by Origin ..............................................

Classification by Grain Size
Classification by Grain Size and B'eav*ier
INDEX PROPERTY TESTS ............
3-1
....
3-1i
1............................31
'.. 3-2
.........................
. . . 3-4
3.3.3
Gener&l ......
.....................................
Sample Preparation . . . . . .. . . . ...
. . . . . ...
Water Content ..................
.....................
3-4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
.............
3-4
3.3.4
Unit Weight .........................................................
3.3. 1
........
SOIL CLASSIFICATION ......
3.3.3 2
;
Special Considerations ...............................................
3.2.3
' '
3.1.2
"3.2.2
Scop
3.2.1
"3.3
................. 3-1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................
3.1.1
225
2-26
2-27
3-?
Page
3.3.5
3.3.6
3.3.7
3.3.8
3.4
General ...................
.....................................
Vane Shear Test ..............
.................................
Unconfined Compression Test
.............................
Unconsolidated, Undrained Triaxial Compression Test ........
...............
Consolidated-Undrained and Consolidated-Drained Triaxial Compression Tests .
Consolidated-Drained Direct Shear Test .........
......................
Considerations for Triaxial Testing of Marine Soils ........
...............
One-Dimensional Consolidation Test ...............................
General .... ......

.............
................
Nearshore Sediments ..................
...............................
Deep Sea Sediments ..............
................................
3.6
REFERENCES ......
3.7
SYMBOLS .......................
................
3-14
3-14
.. 3-16
3-17
3-18
.....................
......................................
..................................
4-1
4-1
4-3
General ..............................................
..........
Site .......
..........................
. ........
...............
Structure ..................
......................................
Loading .................
............................
. ..........
Geotechnical ....................
.
.
..........................
Factor of Safety ................. ......................
DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE ...........
4-1
4-1
General .................................................. ......

..
Definitions/Descriptions ................
.............................
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ................

4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
4.2.6
.................
3-14
.......................
.........
INTROCUCTION ....................
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.3
.. 3-9
3-10
.. 3-12
3-13
. 3-13
.. 3-13
3-13
3-13
.........................................
Chapter 4 - SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS AND DEADWEIGHT ANCHORS.
4.2
3-9
PROPERTY CORRELATIONS ......................................................

3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
4.1
37
3-7
3-9
.. 3-9
ENGINEERING PROPERTY TESTS ..................................................

3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3,4.4
3.4.5
3.4.6
3.4.7
3.4.8
3.5
Specific Gravity .............................

..........
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index ......
................
.............................
Grain Size Analysis ...................
.......................
Carbonate and Organic Carbon Content .......
. .......
.......................
4-3
4-4
4-4
4-4
4-4
4-5
4-5
4.3.1 General
............................
.......
.4-5
4.3.2 Bearing Capacity . ..............................................
. ..
.
4-7
4.3.3' Lateral Load Capacity ...........
..................................
4-11
4.3.4 Overturning Resistance ............
. ....... ....................
4-13
4.3.5 Shear Key Design ..............
.................................
.. 4-14
4.3.6 Foundation Settlement ................................................
4-15
4.3.7 Installation and Removal ...........
...........................
..
. 4-17
4.4
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS ..........

4.4.1
4.4.2
4.5
4.6
Chapter 5
5.1
5.2
.................................
4-17
ohesive Soil .....

.....
Ohesionless Soil .....................
.....................
.. ............
. ........... ....................
PILE FOUNDATIONS AND ANC14CRS .................
..............
4-17'
4-24
..................
.................
4-28
4-28
............................
5-1
INTRODUCTION
....................................
PILE
DESCRIPTIONS
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5 "1"
IE
5.
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.3
Problem 1 - Simple Foundation on

REFERENCES .....
SYMBOLS .............
-
......
ECITIN.................... ...........
.....
.....
o.....
Pile Types ...........

.......
. ....
...................
Mooring Line Connections . . . . . ........
. ..........
Modifications for Increasing Lateral Load Capacity..-...........
DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR SIMPLE PILES IN SOl

5.3.1
5.3.2
....
General . .........................
Soil Properties .... .......
....
......
.....
SEAFLOORS . ........................
.......
..........
.............
.................
....
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
51
....
. . ...-5
.1
Page
5.3.3
5.3.4
5.3.5
5.3.6
5.3.7
Pile Design Loads ..... .........

........ .......................
Lateral Load Analysis ..................
..............................
Axial Load Analysis ..................
..........................
Steel Stress Analysis .............
........ ....................
Special Cases ................
..................................
5.4 DESIGN OF PILE ANCHORS IN ROCK SEAFLOORS ...........

5.4.1
5.4.2
5.5
Lateral Capacity ....... . ...........

Uplift Capacity ....................
.. 5-6
5-7
. . 5-9
5-11
.. 5-12
.. 5-13
........................
.. 5-14
5-15
.............................
.................................
PILE INSTALLATION.5-15
5.5.1
5.5.2
5.5.3
"5.5,4
Driven Piles ............................

.....
.................
.........................
Drilled and Grouted Piles ..........
Jack-in Piles .......................................................
Jetted Piles ................
...................................
5.6 EXAMPLE PROBLEMS .....................
.. 5-15
5-17
5-18
.. 5-18
....................................
5-18
"5.6.1
"5.6.2
Problem 1--Pile Design in a Cohesive Soil ........

....................
.. 5-18
Problem 2--Pile Design in a Cohesionless Soil ..........
..................
5-25
5.7 REFERENCES ................................................................
5-29
5.8 SYMBOLS .............
. ...............
..............................
5-30
Chapter 6 - DIRECT-EMBEDMENT ANCHORS
6.1
....
...........
INTRODUCTION ....................
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
...........
...................
......................................
6-1
Purpose ...........
.....................
. .....
..........
......
6-1
Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 6-1
6.2 DIRECT-EMBEDNENT ANCHOR TYPES AND SIZES ..............
......................
Propellant-Oriven Anchor ...........................
6-1
6.2.2
Vibratory-Driven Anchors ...............

..........................
Impact-Driven Anchors
Jetted-In Anchors ..................
................................
Auger Anchors ......................
...............................
6-6
6-6
6-7
6-7
6.2.4
6.2.5
6.3 SITE DATA NEEDED ......................................................
General ..........
................................
...............
Preliminary Penetration Estimate .......................................
Topography,
Strata Thicknesses, Type.
.
......................
Engineering Propetties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . ...
6-8
6-8
6-8
6-8
6.3.5
6.3.6
Complicating or Hazardous Conditions ..... ..............................

Specialized Survey Tools........
.......................
6-10
6-11
.-..
11
6-11
6-11
STATIC HOLDING CAPACITY ...........................
6-12
"6.5.7
"6.6
....................................-
"6.4.1 Penetration Prediction .

...
...................... . . ....
6.4.2 Keying Prediction .............
.....................
.. ............
6.5.1
6.5.2
6.5.3
6.5.4
6.5.5
6.5.6
.. ._
. ... 6-8
6.3.1
6.3.2
a.3.3
6.4 FLUKE PENETRATION AND KEYING ......
6.5
6-1
6.2.1
""6.2.3
. - .6.3.4
6.1
................
Loading Conditions.
.
.....................
Deep and Shallow Anchor Failure .....
...............
. ......
.........
Short-Term Capacity in Cohesive Soils ..............
.... ...............
Long-Term Capacity in Cohesive Soils .......
.......................
..
Short- and Long-Term Capacity in Cohesiofess Soils . . ...
.....
............
Disturbance Corrections . . ........ .............
..........
. .......
Factors ef Safety . ...............
...........................
. ..
DYNAMIC HOLDING CAPACITY...................................
..........
6-12
6-12
6-13
6-14
6-15
6-15
6-16
6-16
6.6.1
Loading Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . -1
6.6.2
Cyclic Loading .........
. .......
vii
. .......
......................
6-16
Page
6.6.3
6.6.4
Earthquake Loading ................

Impulse Loading ....................
.. 6-19
6-19
.............................
.................................
6.7 OTHER INFLUENCES ON HOLDING CAPACITY ..................................

6.7.1
6.7.2
6.8
Holding Capacity on Slopes ............

Creep Under Static Loading ............
HOLDING CAPACITY IN CORAL AND ROCK
6.8.1
6.8.2
6.9
....
.. 6-23
.. 6-24
. ..........................
6-24
6.9.1
6.9.2
..
..............
6-23
............................
............................
Coral ....................
......................................
Rock... .......
. ..........
........ ....
........
EXAPLIE PROBLEMS
6-24
...
.. 6-24
........
......................
6-24
Problem 1--An Embedment Anchor Used in Cohesivei Soil ......................

Problem 2--An Embedment Anchor Used in Cohesionless Soil ..................
6-24
.. 6-28
6.10 REFERENCES ..................

.........................................
6.11 SYMBOLS .................................................................
Chapter 7 - DRAG-EMBEDMENT ANCHORS ................
7.1
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.1.3
7.1.4
7.2
7.3
Purpose and Scope ..................

................................
Drag Anchor Description ..............................................
Types of Drag Anchors ..................
..............................
Application of Drag Anchors ...........
............................
7-1
7-1
7-2
7-3
General
7.2.2
Tripping ... .
..............................
7-3
.....................................
7-4
..............
..........................................
.........................
SITE INVESTIGATION ...... ....
..
......................
. ................
..........................
... ...
7.3.1
7.3.2
Site Data Needed .......

.....
.......................
Topography and Layer Thickness ...........................
7.3.3
Sediment Type and Strength ...
7-5
.. 7-6
7-8
... . ....
.
7-B
..
..........
............
,77-8
7-9
..................
Site Investigation Summary .....
.
....
..........
. .....
. 710
.............
SELECTING A DRAG ANCHOR ...................................
7-11
7.4.1 General . . .. ............

..............
..........
7.4.2 Tripping and Penetration Performance ..............................
7.4.3 Stability Performance ....
.............
........
..................
7.4.4 Holding Capacity Performdnce ............
................
...........
7.4.5 Selection of Anchor Type .........
. . ......
. .... ..................
7.5
0-
7-3
Embedment ....................
Stability ...........
Soaking ...............
7.3.4
7.4
7-1
7.2.1
7.2.3
7.2.4
7.2.5
77-1
...........................................
FUNCTIONING OF A DRAG ANCHOR ..................
-'
. 6-31
6-32
.................................
INTRODUCTION ................
'..".
...
7-11
.. 7-12
7-12
7-12
... 7-12
K-"
SIZING-A DRAG ANCHOR ...................................... 7-12

7.5.1 Efficiency Ratio Method....................................
7.5.2 Power Law Method ............
...................
7.5.3 Analysis Based on Geotechnical Considerations ......
....
.....
........................
7.5.4 Factor of Safety ............
7.6
TROUBLESHOOTING. .. .. ........
............
........
7.6.1 Soft Sediments ..............................
7.6.2 Hard Sediments .............................................
7.7
PIGGYBACKING......................................................7-20
7.G
BI
. .
..
. .
...
........
7.7.1 Field Practice . . . ...............

..........................
7.7.2 Results and Field Problems.
.
........................
7.7.3 Recommended Practice .... ..........................
viii
......
................
..............
7-12
7-13
.. 7-17
. . .7-18
.
............
. . ...
.. .
.... 7-19
7-19
7-20
. .
, .......
...
......
.
7-20
7-22
.. 7-23
.20
Page
7.8
7.9
REFERENCES .........................................................
SYMBOLS ..................
.........................................
..
Chapter 8 - PENETRATION OF OBJECTS INTO THE SEAFLOOR ............

8.1
......................................
.. 8-1
"8.1.1
.....................................
..................................
.. 8-1
8-1
8.3
8.5
8.6
8.6
Application .................
...........................
Approach ..................
.....................................
Method ,for Predicting Shallow Static Penetration ..........
Methods for Predicting Deep Static Penetration ......
8-1
.......
8-1
8-1
8-2
.. 8-5
...... .........
..................
8-7
Application ................
...................................
Approach . ..........................................................
Method for Predicting Dynamic Penetration ......
.....................
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS .....................

8.4.1
8.4,2
.-"
...................................
DYNAMIC PENETRATION ......................................................

8.3.1
8.3.2
8.3.3
8.4
Purpose ..................
Scope ...........
....
STATIC PENETRATION ...................

8.2.1
8.2.2
8.2.3
8.2.4
8-1
INTROOUCfION ...................
8.1.2
8.2
.......................
.. 8-7
8-7
.. 8-7
....................................
8-11
..
Problem 1--Slow Penetration of a Long Cylinder ......

..................
Problem 2--Rapid Penetration of a Long Cylinder .......
.................
REFERENCES
.............................................................
SYMBOLS........................................................
B L
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
. .
. . .
. .
. . .
. .
.
. .
.
. .
. . . . .
.
. .
.
. .
. .
SY
Chaptar 9 - BREAKOUT OF OBJECTS FROM THE SEAFLOOR .....................................
9.1
INTRODUCTION..................
9.1.1
9.1.2
9.1.3
9.2
. .......................................
Applications . . . . . . ...............
.
General Concepts .............
Definitions ................
REQUIRED INFOR14ATION
..
..
...............
...................
9.3
.........................
Object Embedment Characteristics ............
Sediment Chardcteristics .............
........................
Bearing Capacity (Cohesive Sediments) .......
......................
SHORT-TERM (IM4EDIATE) BREAKOUT .......
....................................
"9.4
LONG-TERM BREAKOUT TIME PREDICTION ....
9.5
BREAKOUT AIDS ....................................

9.5.1
9.5.2
9.. 3
9.5.4
9.5.5
9.5.6
-'"
9.6
"*
9.7
-
.9-6
9-8
9-9
9-9.
9-9
. 9`9
. . 9-9
.. .
.....................
. ........
...
Problem I - Recovery of a Large Long Cyliiler ..................

Problem 2 " Recovery of a Skirted Foundation .........
ix
..................
9-10
9-10
9-10
9-10
............
9-10
.........
........
9-4
9-4
9-5
9-5
9-7
........................................
. . ...... .......
...
. ..................
Irregular Shape or Neauniform Embedment Depth.

Waiting Time ........................................................
Foundation Skirts ....
...........................................
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
9,7.1
9.7.2
........
......
.....................
Jetting and Drainage Tubes
Eccentric Loading ...................................................
Cyclic Loading .....
.
..............................
Rocking or Rolling ..........................................
.....................
Breakaway Parts .........................
........
......................
Altering Buoyant Weight ..........
OTHER FACTORS ....

9.6.1
9.6.2
9.6.3
..................
9-1
9-2
9-2
9-4
.....
"9.2.3
........
8-19
8-20
8 2
9-1
............................
.................................
.............
.....................
................
8-11
8-14
9-1
9.2.1
9.2.2
7-23
7-24
9-10
9_13.
Page
9.8
9.9
REFERENCES ......................
SYMBOLS ..................................
Chapter 10 - SCOUR .....
......................................
.....................
10.2 SCOUR TYPES ...................
.. 10-1
.................................
. . . . . ,........10-1
. . . . . . . 10-1
. .. . .
. . . . . . . ..
10.1 10.1~
INTRODUCTION
ITOUTO..................
,..........................
10.1.1 Objectives ..................

10.1.2 Theory .....................
10.1.3 Modeling ..................
9-16
9-17
..........
....................................
......................................
.....................................
10-1
10-1
.. 10-1
.. 10-2
.......................................
10.2.1 Seasonal and Local Scour .........

..................................
10.2.2 Deep Water Wave-Induced Scour ..........................................
10.3 ESTIMATING SEASONAL SCOUR...........
10.4 ESTIMATING LOCAL SCOUR AT, SEAFLOOR STRUCTURES .........
10-2
10-2
.......................
ln-2
......................
.. 10-3
10.4.1 Effect of Seafloor Factors on Scour ...................................

10.4.2-Structures Piercing the Water Surface ...........
.......................
10.4.3 Structures Resting on the Seafloor ......................................
10.4.4 Time for Scour Development ................
............................
10.5 MINIMIZING SCOUR
. ...
..............
..
10-3
10-5
10-9
10-11
........
10-12
10.5.1 Scour-Resistant Structures ..........................................

10.5.2 Sco-ir Protection Measures .................
............................
10-12
10-12
10.6 REFERENCES ....................

.......................................
.. 10-16
10.7 SYMBOLS ...................................................................
10-18
Chapter 11 - SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT ......
..............................
......
11.1 INTRODUCTION .................

.........................
. ....
11.2 FORMS OF INSTABILITY ....................
..................................
11.2.1
11.2.2
11.2.3
11.2.4
............
.11-1
11-1
11-2
Translational Slides.........
...
.............................
.. 11-3
Rotational Slides ..........
.....................................
.. 11-3
Flow Slides
....................................
11-3
Turbidity Currents ...................................................
11-5
11.3 LOADING ..........
..............
..............................
..
11-5
11.3.1 Loading Mechanisms

.............................
11.3.2 Probabilistic Preaoction of Load ........................
11.4 IMPORTANT SOIL PROPERT!SS ..............
... 11-5
11-5
. . ..........
.. 11-6
................................
11.4.1 Gene-al
....................
.......................
.. .U11-6
11.4.2 Special Conditions: Underconsolidated Sediments
..................
11-6
11.4.3 Repetitive and Dynamic Loading Response of Sediments .....................
11-7
11.5 LEVEL OF ANALYSIS ................................................
11.6 SITE ,INVESTIGATION .................
.................
. .................
11.6.1
11.6.2
11.6.3
11.6.4
General ...................
..............................
Preliminary Studies ..................
...............................
Ar.oustic Surveys ..............
...................
Sampling of Sediments . . .... . ...
...................
11.7 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

..................................
11.6 REFERENCES ....
...................
................
11.9 SYMBOLS .....................
......................................
11-7
11-7
.......
11-7
11-8
11-9
11-11'
...............
................
....
11-12
. 11-15
... 11-16
- -
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.3-1
1.3-2
1.3-3
1.3-4
1.3-5
2.1-1
2.1-2
2.1-3
2.3-1
2.4-1
2.4-2
2.4-3
2.5-1
3.2-1
3.3-1
3.3-2
3.4-1
4.2-1
4.3-14.3-2
5.2-1
5.2-2
5.2-3
5.3-1
5.3-2
5.3-3
5.3-4
5.3-5
5.4-1
6.2-1
6.2-2
6.3-1
6.5-1
6.6-1
6.7-1
7.3-1
7.4-1
.7.6-1
7.5-2
7.6-1
&.2-1
Page
Features of Shallow Foundations and Deadweight Anchors .......
.................
Features of Pile Foundation and Anchor Systems . .. ......... ..................
Features of Direct-Embedment Anchors..........
... ..........................
Features of Drag-Embedment Anchor Systems .........
........................
Performance of Foundation and Anchor Types as a Function of Seafloor and
Loading Conditions ........
..... ... ..................................
.. 1-3
.. 1-4
1-5
.. 1-5
.. 1-6
Site Data Requirements for Categories of Geotechnical Engineering Applications ..... ...
Soil Engineering Parameters Normally Required for Categories of Geotechnical
Engineering Applicatiolis.. ............
..... .............................
Historical Environmental Information Needed to Assess Geotechnical Hazards .........
..
Steps in a Typical Regional Survey ..........
... ...........................
..
Steps in a Typical Site-Specific Survey ......... ....... ........................
Shallow Soil Sampler Types and Applications .........
.......................
Characteristics of Some Free-Fall and Lowered Corers
.......
....
.......
In-Sitqi Tests, Applications, and Some.Equipment Characteristics .... .............
.
Size Range Limits for Two Soil Classification Systems .... .......
................
Requirements for Indtx Property Tests ......... ..... ........................
Some Index and Engineering Properties of Ocean Sediments (Most Data Limited to
Upper 2 Meters of Seafloor) ...........
......................
...........
Requirements for Engineering Property Tests ...........
......................
Soil Properties Required for f.maysis and Recommended Factors of, Safety .........
Suimary of Steps in the Design of Shallow Foundations and Deadweight Anchors ........
Coefficient of Friction Between Cohesionless Soils and Some Marine
Constructicn Materials ........
.........
................................
2-2
2-2
2-3
2-12
2-1b
2-16
2-19
2-22
3-2
.. 3-5
3-6
.. 3-11
4-5
4-7
...
4-12
Pile Types ..........

..... ....... .......................................
Mooring Line Connections ..........
..... ..... ................................
Techniques to Improve Pile Lateral Load Capacity ........
....................
Properties of CohESionless Soil Useful in Pile Design .........
..................
Properties of Cohesive Soils Useful in Pile Design ........
.....
..............
Properties of Calcareous Soil Useful in Pile Design ......
...................
Bearing Capacity Factors for Chain Lateral Force in Sand ...... ................
Recommended Limiting Values for Unit Skin Friction and End Bearing for
Cohesionless Soils. ....... ..... .......
..................................
Rock Properties .........
..... ...
.....................................
5-2
5-3
.. 5-3
5-5
5-5
.. 5-6
5-7
Propellant-Driven Embedment Anchors for Ocean Use

.....................
Parameters for Navy Propellar..-Embedded Anchors
.....................
Conditions Complicating or Hazardous to Direct-Embedment Anchor Use ...............
Values for Strength Reduction Factor for Use in Equation 6-3 .....
.............
Average Values of Soil Permeability .........
...
..........................
Factors Associated With Direct-Embedment Anchors Which Can Influence Submarinp:
Slope Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
6-3.
6-4
. 6-10
.. 6-16
.. 6-18
Estimated Maximuo Fluke nip Penetrattou of Some Drag Anchor Types in Hard
,and Soft Soils .......
...........
.
..........
..........
Rating of Drag Anchor Types Based on Tripping and Dig-In, Roll Stability,
and Holding Capacity Efficiency .........
....... ............................
Parnmeters HR and b Used in Equation 7-2 . .............
. ..... ..............
Parameters N and f Used for Clays and Cohesive Silts in Equation 7-3 .............
'Troubleshooting Procedures for Correcting Drag Anchor Performance Problems .... .......
..
5-9
5-14
6-24
7-9
7-11
7-14
.. 7-18
7-19
8.3-1
8.4-1
8.4-2
Correlation Coefficients Between Dutch Cone Penetration Resistance and Thin-Walled

Skirt and DowlPenetration Resistance ........
.....
..................
.....
Values of Constants Used in Equation 8-12 .........
........................
Summary of Calculations for Problem 1 .... . .........
......................
Sumary of Calcuiations for Proolem 2 .........
.....
.....
.......
.....
.....
.....
..
11.2-1
11.7-1
11.7-2
Movement Models for Submarine Slides in Soft and Loos* Sediment .........
Level I Slope Stability Survey ..........
.....
.............................
Level II Slope Stability Survey ...........
.....
.........................
11-2
.. 11-13
.. 11-14
X1
.....
8-6
8-9
. 8-14
.8-19
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.3-1
Simplified anchor types ..............
2.2-1
2.2-2
2.2-3
2.2-4
2.2-5
2.2-6
2.2-7
2.2-8
2.3-1
2.4-1
2.4-2
2.4-3
2.4-4
Ocean sediment distribution .........

....... ...............................
2-6
Topography of the carbonate compensation depth (CCD) . ..... ..........
.......... 2-7
Marine geological provinces
probable soil types .......
..................
2-8
Typical strength profile for hemipelagic terrigenous silty clay . . .. . ..........
2-9
Typical strength profiles for proximal and distal turbidites ... ...................
2-9
Typical strength profiles for calcareous ooze . ......... .....................
.. 2-10
Typical strength profiles for pelagic clay ..........
.......................
.. 2-10
Typical strength profile for siliceous ooze . ...... ... ............ ............ 2-11
Acoustic profiling systems ... .............................................
2-13
Grab samplers and dredges .... .......... .........
.......................
.
-16
Box corer and its operation sequence .............. ........................
.. 2-17
Long piston corer operation sequence with a short corer used as a trigger weight . . .. 2-18
Alpine vibracore sampler ..........
........ ...............................
2-20
Correction factor for vane determined shear strength . . ; '..............
2-23
Electric friction-cone penetrometer tip . ..
........
.......................
.. 2-23
Correlation between cone tip resistance and sand relative density .................
.. 2-24
Estimation of sand friction angle, *, from material relative densitj ..............
. ..2-24
Seismic risk map of United States coastal waters ... ............................
2-26
2.5-1
2.5-2
2.5-3
2,5-4
2.6-1
3.2-1
3.2-2
3.4-1
3.5-1
3.5-2
3.5-3
,3.5-4
...........
.......................
Trilineal soil classification plot - normally used with Wentworth grade limits . ...
. 3-2
Unified soil classification chart........
.....................
3-3
Miniature vane blade geometry . . . . ......
.............. ....... .... 3-12
Relationship between s /P
and P1 for normally consolidated late glacial clay ... .....
3-14
Relationship between fIiclton angle and P1 for normally consolidated
fine-grained soils . .........
............................................. 3-15
Correlation between coefficient of consolidation and liquid limit .........
..... ...
3-15
Range of PI values for pelagic clay .....
: ......................
3-16
3.5-5
Correlation between water content and C /(I + e ) for pelagic clay and
calcareous ooze .c..
. . .
. . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
4.1-1
Features of simple shallow foundation .....
4.1-2
Types of shallow foundations
4.1-3
4.3-1
4.3-'2
4.3-3
4.3-4
4.3-5
4.3-6
4.4-1
4.4-2
4.4-3
Types and significant characteristics of deadweight anchors ...... ...............

Flow chart for the design of shallow foundations and deadweight anchors ....
.........
Bearing capacity factors N , N , and N as a function of the snil friction angle . . ..
Area reductior, factors forqeccintr~ca]Yy loaded foundations .....
.................
Possible failure modes, when sliding resistance is exceeded .....
............
.....
Forces considered in the overturning analysis ...............................
Soil stress increase beneath a rectangular foundation . . . .. ...
....... . . ....
Foundation sketch for example problems I and 2 ...... ........................
..
Forces considered in the overturning analysis for example problem 1 .... ...........
Forces considered in the overturning analysis for-example problem2 .... .........
5.3-'1
5.3-2
5.3-3
5.3-4
5.3-5
5.4-1
5.5-1
5.5-2
5.6-1
5.6-2
Flow chart for the pile design procedure ... .....

...........
. ... ...........
.. 5-4
Design values for nh for cohesionless soils . . .......... ....................
5-7
Design values for n for cohesive soils ........
.. .....
.
..............
....... 5-8
Deflection coefficients A and B at the nround surface .................
....... . 5-8
Influence values for a piYe withyapplied lateral load or moment .... .............
.5-11
Failure modes for pile anchors in'a rock seafloor ...........
. ................
5-13
Pile installation techniques ... .....................
..... ...............
5-16
Drilled~and grouted pile ......... ....... ..............................
.. 5-17
Problem sketch for example problems 1 and 2 ....... .......................
.. 5-19
Soils data for example problem I ............
.....
.................
.........
5419
6.2-1
6.2-2
6.2-3
6.2-4
6.2-5
6.3-1
6.5-1
6.5-2
Installation sequence for a propellant-embedment anchor ....... .......

. ........
6-2
NCEL 10K propellant-embedment anchor showinq sand and clay flukes ..........
.........
6-5
Coral and rock flukes for NCEL propellant-embedment anchor systems . . . .. .
......
.6-5
Impact-driven anchors . . .............
..... ..... ..... ..........
6-6
Jetted-in anchors .........
...
..............................
......
. . 6-7
Flow chart for predicting the holding capacity of a direct-embedment anchor ..........
6-9
Failure modes for shallow and deep embedded plate anchors .....
. . . . .
........
.
6-12
Short-term holding capacity factors for cohesive soil where full suction
develops beneath the plate.. . . ..
..........
..............
.
. ........
.. 6-13
Long-term holding capacity factors and short-term no-suction factors for
cohesive soils . .. .
.................
..................
6-14
Holding capacity factors for cohesionless soils
..........
........
. ......
. 6-15
6.5-3
6.5-4
.....................
.............................
xi.
.,_
-.
-Y
4-1'
4-2
4-3
4-6
4-8
4-10
4-11
4-14
416
4-18
4-23
427
"'
Page
Figure
""
S6.6-3
6.6-1
6.6-2
6.6-6
6.6-7
6.9-1
6.9-2
6.9-3
Nomenclature for types of non-steady loading . . . ...................

6-17
Time required for dissipation of stress-induced excess pore pressure ..... ..........
6.-18
Maximum cyclic load capacity without soil strength loss . ...........
..... ..... ...
6-19
Maximum (lifetime) cyclic load capacity without development of cyclic creep .......
. .6-19
Strain-rate factor, 1, for cohesive soil ...... ......... ........................
6-20
Inertial factor, If, for cohesive and cohesionless soils . . . ........
. .........
6-21
Strain-rate factor, I, for cohesionless soil ........
......
...............
.. 6-22
Mooring sketch for example problem 1 ........................................
6-25
Soil strength profile for example problem 1 ........
.
.....
. ... .............
.6-25
6-28
Mooring sketch for example problem 2 ...... ....... ...........................
7.1-1
Features of a drag anchor .......
7.1-2
7.1-3
Example of a movable fluke anchor:

STEVIN cast .......
Example of a fixed fluke anchor: BRUCE cast . ...
6.6-4
"6.6-5
4..
,...-
7.1r4
7.1-5
7.2-1
S-
7.2-2
7.2-3
7.2-4
7.2-5
7.2-6
7.3-1
7.5-1
7.5-2
7.6-1
7.7-1
7.7-2
7.7-3
7.7-4
8.2-1
8.2-2
8.2-3
8.2-4
8
8.3-1
8.3-2
8.4-1
"8.4-2
8.4-3
9.1-1
""
"
.......................
Examples of bilateral fluke anchors . . .

. .........
Example of a soft soil anchor: STEVMUD. ...........
....
..
..........
7-2
.......
..............
. ...............
........
.................
.................
7-2
7-2
7-3
7-3
.......
Development of a tripping problem in soft seafloors with an improperly set anchor .
. 7-4
Proper anchor setting sequence using two floating platforms . ......

..............
Development of a tripping problem in hard seafloors.......
. ..................
Penetration and orientation behavior of ananchor in hard and soft seafloors .........
Forces on unstabilized and stabilized anchors in sand
Anchor in soft soil, after balling-up and pullinC-out .
.
............
. . ...
Site survey plan decision flow chart .........
. .....
.
.......
.................
Anchor chain system holding capacity at the mudlinein soft soils ..... .............
Anchor chain system holding capacity at the mudline in hard soils ....
,.......
...
Typical perforaance of drag anchors when operating properly and improperly .... .......
A pendant line and buoy arrangement for semisubmersibles .........
.............
..
Chain chaser used to assist anchor deployment and recovery .....
...............
..
Tandem/piggyback anchor arrangements ......
..... ...
..........................
Parallel anchor arrangement ............
.....................................
7-5
7-5
7-7
77..................77
7-8
7-10
7-15
7-16
7-20
7-21
7-21
7-22
7-23
Shallow static penetration model ......

.....
..................
....... . . . . 8-2
Relationships for calculating sinkage resistance in-cohesionless soils;
for = 30 and 40 .....
..................................
8-3
Flow chart of the calculation procedure for predicting static penetration ....
........
8-4
Location of the critical shear strength zone B for blunt and conical penetrators . .
. 8-5
Forces acting on~a penetrator before and after contact with the seafloor ...........
.. 8-8
Flow chart of the calculation procedure for predicting dynamic penetration .... .......
8-10
Problem sketch and soils data for example problem 1 .........
...................
8-11
Plot of predicted soil resistance to EPS penetration ...... ...................... 8-14
Sketch for example problem 2.........
.................
. . . ...
8-15
9.3-1
9.4-1
9.7-1
9.7-2
Flow chart for procedures to determine immediate breakout force and time required
........
for long-term breakout under a lower force . . ....... ... .......
Normalized immediate breakout force as a function of relative embedment depth .........
Normalized long-term breakout force as a function cf breakout time parameter .. ......
Problem sketch and data for example problem I . . ... ......
...........
.........
Problem sketch and-data for example problem 2 ........ ........................
9-3
9-6
9-8
9-11
9-14'
10.4-1
Clear water scour and general sediment transport near a pile ..... . . . .. .
10.4-2
04
"10.410.4-4
10.4-5
1046
-10.4-6
10.4-7
10.5-1
10.5-2
10-3
Variation of maximum clear water scour depth with seafloor material diameter
,at a cylindrical pier .......... ............
....
. .... ............ ... 10-4
Idealized wave-induced flow and scour patterns around a vertical cylinder ........
10-i
Summary plot of field and model scour depth data at single piles and pile groups . . .
10-7
Scour comparison for very large circular, square and hexagonal cylinders of equal
cross-sectional area where a/D << 0.2 .......
.........
. .... .... ..
...... 108
Scour development at a pipeline exposed to a uniform current of 1.2 to 1.5 ft/sec . .
. 10-10
Burial of a smell object on the seafloor from a progressive scour sequence .... ....... 10-11
Example of an inverted filter for scour protection at an offshore structure ..........
10-14
Example of a filter material specification (Diamond Shoals Light) .... ............
.. 10-14
11.1-1
Loading and resistance, forces on a potential slide mass
11.2-1
11.2-2
11.2-3
"11.3-1
11.5-1
11.6-1
11.6-2
"11.7-1
.........
.111
..
Enhanced seismic profile of a translational slide ....... ................... ...

Seismic profiles of a rotational slide ...............
. ... ................
...
Seismic profiles of a submarint flow'. ................. ..................
...
Probabilistic description of loading and resistance and risk assessment
in slope stability evaluation .................................
Summation of forces and moment for stability aalyss11-8
Lxamples of high resolution seismic records of slides caused by slope instability . . .
Examples of a shallow coring plan used in stability analysis ....
............
. ..
Features on seismic profiles indicative of bottom-instability problems.......... . ..
xiii
11-3
11-4
11-4
11-6
11-10
11-12
11-15
Chapter 1
INTROOtkTION
aspects of engineering problems associated with
OBJECTIVE
1.1
"*
the facilities are difficult for Navy engineers
"Marine
geotechnical
neering
techniques
physical
properties
seafloor
materials
"elements are
knowledge
the
investigation
The
to
responses
foundation
nature of most geotechnical

to a general
of
seafloor
of these
and
widely distributed.
information together.
'
ment.
Navy
Geotechnical
together the more important
Engineering brings
low level
construction,
of underMuch
of what does exist Is published in documents not
mooring
the engineering aspects of marine

for Marine
Also, due
standing of seafloor soil behavior exists.
geotechnology which are addressed in this docuHandbook
topics.
lack of historical precedence for
This
the highly specialized
because of
to address
the
and engi-
and the definition of their
seafloor materials
.
to
is
engineering
application of scientific
engineers
in
background
The Handbook
brings
this
It is intended for use by
who do
not have an extensive
geotechnical
The
engineering.
aspects of 5eafloor behavior for application to
Ha!'ook Is not an all-inclusive design manual.
Navy deep ocean ungineering problems.
Rather,
The Navy installs, or may require installation of, a variety of facilities fixed to the
famillariz engineers with geotechnical aspects

of problem, !serve as a design guide for rela-
*4,
continental shelves and slopes, to the submarine
tively unc
slopes of seamounts and islands, and to the deep
nical directo
ocean floor.
to more sophi ticatedanalysis and design proce-
.
'
*
Some
of these facilities rest on
shallow foundations resebling a spread footing

or
or
subsurface-moored
Ssurfacetypes
buoyant element is
uplift-reSisting
of
tinental
foundations
or
piles
or
and slope
1.2
In addi-
.cour
or my be created by the placement

Navy military and
construction
.
bilitty
for
of,
plan
design,
facilities.
and 1
SEAFLOOR
about 600 feet),
the
tained in the Handbook is applilem
in
shallow
water as
well.
chapters
grouped
into
LEKS.
remaining ch pters.
respondt-
Geotechnical
*
technical
The Int odu:tion serves as a guide to the,
supervise
tuo
7f@
or below
for use with
beyond the con-
tions: PROPERTIES DETERMINATION,

three major
DESIGN OF F )UE0ATIONS AND ANCHORS, and OTHER
ivilian engineer's will

for,
or have -technical
'these
is intended
(nominally
HANDOOK ORGANIZATION
tion,
of
these elements.
to
and be a tech-
This Manlfok has 11 chapters; an Introduc-
stability problems may
tion,
exist
required
is to
lying on or
the 'seafloor In the imesdiate area.
be
the Handbook
or drag-ebedeent anchors.
the mooring elements
in the seafloor is dependent on the

physical properties of the materials making up
to p
cable
"embedded
"
ugh i t
she f
information
by
of
to more complete discussions and
deep ocean p llef
tethered to the seafloor by
propel*,ant-embedment
Behavior
where
objective
licated. problems,
Alt
dures.
rmy be
Others
on pile*-like foundations.
the
1.
It lists ginhalizd fee"
for each type of foundatioa and ancher,

e
and can assist the
reader in selection of an
"appropriate foundation
are discussed.
Chapter 8 describes techniques
ments.
for
the
Properties
"consisting of
"
other aspects of marine geotechnical engineering
or anchor type based on
environmental conditions and structural requireThe

-
In the Other Seafloor Problems section four
Determination
Chapters 2 and 3,
section,
discusses
predicting
depth
of
objects into the seafloor.
on-
penetration
of
The techniques can
be used for penetration prediction% with large
site and laboratory determination of soil prop-
and small objects of various
erties and presents physical property models for
lost hardware,
major seafloor soil types.
tion elments)
Chapter 2 describes
shapes
instrument packages,
(such
as
or founda-
impacting the seafloor at high or
the various aspects of surveying a site, including preliminary reference information gathering
low
and survey planning through brief descriptions
required to embed a given object to a specified
of
subbottom
remote
survey equipment,
sampling equipment,
"testir.g
initial velocities.
The procedures of
Chapter 8 can also be used to predict the force
shallow and deep
and in-situ soil properties
equipment.
Additional
information
on
depth
(shear
foundation,
resting
keys
for
below
example).
bottomChapter 9
prescnts techniquesi .dar predicting the force or
site
""
stability
also contains a section on estimating soil prop-
can
erties for use in a preliminary design when no

field data are available.
Chapter 3 describes
Analytical techniques are given for two significantly different cases--full-suction and zero-
""
the laboratory tests performed on recovered soil
suction--along with a discussion of mechanical
samples to generate index and engineering prop-
techniques that can reduce the breakout forces
erties data required for analysis and design of
and
seafloor structures.
scour prediction
"""
surveying
is
the
for
given
in
assessment
of
Chapter 11.
slope
tim required
Chapter 2
in
Use of index properties to
classify the soil and to correlate with enginearing properties is also described,
Design
The
section,
of
Foundations
consisting
of
and
Chapters 4
describes the use of topographic,

and
properties
soil
necessary
*"tions
"
breakout.
Chapter 10
techniques.
describes
is
It
directed
changes.
from historical
drawn
to
studies
of
seasonal
seafloor pro-
information
Most
nearshore
on
observations
and
river
is
scour
conditions.
extrapolated
seafloor
stability in qualitative terms. 'Techniques
surface.
Design of piles
or
anchors
is
in
potential for slope instability.
seafloor are treated in Chapter 6, with emphasis
stability
analysis
"given to
the propellant-embedment anchor systems
presented
in
recently
incroduced into the Navy's Ocean Con-
the
selection
anchors;
anchor
sizing
the
resistance
chain
interaction
only
and
materials
interoretiv
Chapter 7 covers
and
of
of
drag-embedment
developed
with
system.
detail.
The methods of
but are not
Considerable
technical
skills are required for evaluation
information
and
application
of
the
Each chaoter has a list, of references and
from
seafloor
References 1-1,
site
are described
analytical procedures.
symbols visd In that chapter.
is discussed and not the design of a
complete mooring
are
described for surveying a site to determine its
Plate-shaped anchors embedded in the
struction Equipment Inventory.
to
conditions more likely to exist in deeper marine

enviianme-ts.
Chaptcr 11
discusses
slope
for use as
discussed
is
and model
Insight from these studies
foundations
"
on
capacities of foundation and anchor

systems. Chapter 4 covers the design of foundaand deadweight anchors bearing on the
Chapter S.
effect
requirements.
time
file
"predict
*
significant
discussion of nearshore
7,
stratigraphic,
information
have
primarily toward scour problems around objects

on the seafloor (Tocal scour), but includes a
Anchors
through
for breakout of objects embedded
the seafloor and discusses conditions that
Example problems,
which outline design or calculation procedures,
2-Z,
are presented at the end of each chapter that
and 1-3 can be consulted for information regard-
Inchlaes design procedures.
Ing complete mooring systems..
1.2r
-!-
"1.3
SELECTION OF FOUNDATIOM/ANCHOR TYPE

4,
type
.
idfferent
.
deadweight,
drag-embedment,
embedent (Figure 1.3-1].

tion
and
anchor
features.
SChapters
5, 6, and 7 each describe a

or... anchor--.
.
of . foundation
types
pile,
strong
summarizes
tures [Tables 1.3-1 through 1.3-4]

guidance on selecting the optiomu
.':!::::'.."
and direct-
(a)deadweight
Each of these foundahas
This section
points
these
or
fea-
to provide
foundation or
....
.... .
...............
anchor type for a given set of problem conditions.
(b) drag-ebedment
Shallow foundations and deadweight anchors

are widely used in the deep ocean environment
because they are simple and readily sized for
most seafloor and loading conditions.
However,
they do not perform well on steep sloping seafloors.
In addition, deadweight anchors are not
%.- '.'-
"-.
verj efficient (that is, the rstio of lateral

is very low
load resistance to anchor weight
compared to other lateral-load-resisting anchor
types).
features
Table 1.3-1
of
the
lists
these
and
other
shallow foundations and deaar-
kc) pifon(aiso us(d asdi

adeep"
weight anchors.
foundation)
(d) directembedment
Figure 1.3-1. Simplified anchor types.'
Table 1.3-1.
--
Features of Shallow Foundations

and Deadweight Anchors.
Features of Shallow Foundations and Deadweight Anchors

1. Simple, on-site construction feasible, can be tailored to
task.
2.
Size limited only by load-handling equipment.
3. Reliable on thin sediment cover over rock.
4. Lateral load resistance decreases rapidly with increase in
seafloor slope.
Addktional Features of Deadweight Anchors
1.
Vertical mooritng component can be large, permitting shorter

mooring line scope.
2.
3.
No setting distance required.

Reliable resisting force, because most resisting force is
directly due to anchor mess.
Material for construction readily available and economical.
Mooring line connection easy to inspect and service.
A good energy absorber when used as a sinker in conjunction
with nonylelding anchors (pile and plate anchors).
Works well as a sinker in combination with drag-lebedient
anchors to permit shorter mooring line scopes.
Lateral load resistance is low compered to other anchor
types.
In shallow water, the large mass can be an undesirable
4.
5.
6.
7.
9.
obstruction.
1m.3
p/
Direct-embedment anchors can be driven into
Ple foundations and anchors are used where

,
less expensive types of shallow foundations and

anchors
cannot. mobilize sufficient
resistance.
seafloor
soils
by
hsmer-driving
propellant,
systems.
The
vibratory,
or
propellant-
A principal drawback of piles for the deep ocean
embedment systems are particularly amenable to
is
use in the ocean because of the relatively short
the highly specialized equipment needed foy
installation and the associated very high mobil-
time peried required
for installation and the
tzation
few
operating
and
"lists features
installation
costs.
Table 1.3-2
of piles used for foundations and
anchors on the seafloor,
limitations
on
in Table L3-3.
Table 1.3-2.
Features of Pile Foundation

and Anchor Systems
Features of Pile Foundations and Pile Anchors

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
P
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
It
depth.
Other
features of direct-embedment anchors are listed
Requires highly specialized installation equipment.

Transmits high axial loads through soft s-rficial sells
down to competent bearing soil or rockL
Can be designed to accomodate scour and resist shallow
mudflows.
Can be installed and performs well on stbstantial slopes.
Can be installed in hard seafloors (rock and coral) by
drill-and-grout technique.
Orilled-and-groutod piles require more specialized skills
and installation equipment and incur high Installation
Vide range of sizes and shapes are possible (pipe,
structural shapes).
Field modifications permit piles to be tailored to suit
requirements of particular applications.
Costs are high and increase rapidly in depe- water or
exposed locations where more specialized Installation
vessels and driving equipment are required.
Accurate soil properties are required far design.
Additional Features of Pile kAncbr
High lateral capacity (greater than 10),0
lb) achievable.
Resists high uplift as well as lateral leads, permitting
use with short mooring line scopes.
Anchor setting not required.
Anchor dragging eliminated.
Short mooring line scopes permit use I* areas of limited
sea room or where vessel excursions must be irmiimzed.
Pile anchor need not protrude above seaflor.
Driven piles art cost competitive with ethe hfgh-capacity
anchorslwhen driving equipment Is available.
Special equipment (pile extractor) my be required to
retrieve or refurbish the mooring, or raw pile and pendant
must be installed.
More extensive and better quality site data are required
than the data required for other anchor types.
Pile capacity goes to zero when its capacity as an anchor
is exceeded and pullout occurs (is a
nsmyielding' anchor).
Table 1.3-3.
Features of Direc'-Embedment Anchors
Features of All Direct-Embedment Anchors

1.
S2.
High capacity (greater than 100,000 lb) achievable.

Resists uplift as well as lateral loads, permitting moorings
of short scope.
3.
4.
Anchor dragging eliminated.

Higher holding-capacity-to-weight ratio than other anchor
types.
Handling is simplifiad due to relatively light weight.
Accurate anchor placement is possible; no horizontal
setting distance necessary.
Does not protrude above the seafloor.
Possibly susceptible to strength reduction accompanying
cyclic loading Yhen used in taut moorings in loose sand and
"coarse silt seefloors.
For critical moorings, soil engineering properties required.
Anchor typically not recoverable.
Anchor cable may be susceptible to abrasion or' fatigue.
S.
6.
"-
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Features Unique to Propellant-Driven Plate Embedment Anchors

1.
*
A-.'.
S2.
3.
"4.
Can be placed on moderate slopes, and in rock and coral

seafloors.
Installation is simplified as compared to other typei
because they can be embedded immediately on seafloor
contact.
Special consideration neemed for ordnance.
Gun' system not generally retrieved in water deeper than
approximately 1,000 ft.
Features Unique to ScreowIn, Vibrated-In,
and Hammer-Driven Plate Anchors
1.
..".-.-
2.
3.
"4.
.
5.
Can better accommodate loyered seafloors (seafloors with

variable resistance) because of continuous power expenditure
during penetration.
Penetration is controlled and can be monitored.
Surface vessel must maintain position during installation.
Operation with surfaced-powered equipment limited to
shallow depths by power and strength umbilicals as well as
the mooring line.
Operation limited to sediment seafloors.
Table 1.3-4.
S*..--.
.
1.
Wide range of anchor types and sizes available.
2.
High capacity (greater thean 100,000 lb) achievable.
3.
4.
S.
'
,,.
Features of Drag-Embedment Anchor Systems
6.
7.
8.
z*,"9.
"10.
11.
12.
13.
Nest anchors are standard off-the-shelf equipment.

Broad experience with use.
Can provide continuous resistance even though maxim.um
capacity has been ecceeded.,
Is recoverable.
Does not function well in rock seafloors.
Behavior is erratic in layered seafloors.
Low resistance to uplift loads; therefore, large line scope
required to cause near horizontal loading at seafloor.
If dragging is not acceptable, anchor must be pulled
horizontally at high loads to properly penetrate and set.
Oragging of anchor to achieve penetration can damoge
pipelines, cables, etc.
Loading must be limited to one direction for most anchoer
types and applications.
Exact anchor plact-ent limited by ability to estimate
.setting distance.
(
4 1J
llI"
Jl
_~]IJII
Table 1.3-5.
Performance of Foundation and Anchor Types as a

Function of Seafloor and Loading Conditions
Performancea for Following Types--
Item
Dirct
Embedment
Brag
Deadweight
Pile
++
+
+
+4
4+
+4
+.
44
++
++
++
0
++
++
++
0
+
++
++
+
0
a4
0
++
++
44
Seafloor Material Type

Soft clay, mud
Soft clay layer (0-20 ft
thick) over hard layer
Stiff clay
Sand
Hard glacial till
Boulders
Soft rock or coral
Hard, monolithic rock
++
+
++
++
++
44
Seafloor Topography
Moderate slopes, <10 deg
*+
o
Steep slopes, >10 deg
*4
++
Loadina Direction
Downward load component
++
functions well
normally is not the preferred choice
does not function well+
drag-
1.4
1-1.
anchor 1s usually limited to one direction, and
ties,
the mooring- line angle at the seafloor must be
,NAVFAC
horizontal.
44
+4
+
a
REFERENCES
embedment anchors.
Although these anchors can
develop high capacities, the load on a drag
virtually
+4
of
4.
+4
features
44
lists
Table' 1.3-4
++
4+
.+
+
"a4 4
o
4+
4+
Lateral Load Range

To 100,000 lb
100,000 to 1,00C,000 lb
Over 1,000,000 lb
++
+4
(foundations)
Omni-directional (not down)
Uni-directional (not down)
Large uplift component
Design manual,
Naval
harbor and coastal facili-
Facilities
DN-26.
Engineering
Washington.
D.C.
Command,
Jul
1968.
The holding capacity of
drag anchors decreases very quickly as mooring
1-2.
line angles exceed approximately 6 degrees.
To
of spread mooring systems for floating drilling
and
units, American Petroleum Institute, API RP 2P.
assist
in
understanding
disadvantages
Table 1.3-5
under
of
the
compares
different
the
various
how
well
conditions.
advantages
anchor
they
types,
AF!
Dallas, Tex., .My 1981.
function
Judgments
of
1-3.
Rules
expected performance have been made primarily on
offshore
the basis of holding capacity 'and relative cost.
Shipping.
It
should
be
noted
that
Table 1.3-5
expeditious guide, for general use,
is
an
and special
ci-cumstances can shift the performance ratings.
'
,,
recoimmmded practice for the analysis
14
for
building and
drilling
units,
New York, N.Y.,
clessing
American
1980.
mobile
Bureau
of
fI
Chapter 2
SITE SURVEY AND IN-SITU TESTING
2.1
topography on drag anchor performance or (2)
INTRODUCTION
design
Purpose
S-2.1.1
because
"methods for
selecting and characterizing a site
for bottom-resting or moored platforms
Table 2.1-2
site
data
2.1.2.3
Constraints.
'',loadi
sought
will
Ninim.
Required Data. Table 2.1-1
iS a summary of site data requirements for

various geotechnical engineering applications.
The level of
phases
geographic area.
For example,
a manned
habitat installation may require low-precision

date resulting from a regional survey over a
large area to determine an adequate or a best
location for Its placement, while design for the
habitat's
date frU
foundation
sletdst*
e select
Since
regional
requires
high-precision
ste.
surveys
compare
sites
or
ovor large distances, detailed information is

not possible or is not needed as much as for
site-specific studies, which provide design
information.
Regional surveys typically Include
geophysical date collection with limited soil
sampling, such as gravity coring.
Deep soil
Importance or need for each
bo.-ngs and in-situ tests are not typically used

Once a site has been
for site selection.
selected, however, site-specific data are col-
(1) a low impact
of this date
element on the system design and
performance,
as
In
the
low
ilact
of micro-
*symbol
used in Table 2.1-2 and other tables
"are defined where used In the text and
"summarized In Section 2.8.
S2-1
Site-Specific
project
site data element is also identified. "Low" In

Table 2.1-1 indicates a low requirement level,
which may result from either:
*
or
wt.reas others require more accurate data from a
of:
Type and size of the foundations or

anchors
Availability of personnel, equipment,
and survey support platforms
2.1.2.2
Versus
projects
a function
be
Value and replacement cost of platform

Impact of platform failure (primarily)
on human life
- Purpose of the platform
.Topography and seafloor materil type
"' Any presurvey requirements for an exact
geographical location
Types ngs$=t
of man-induced and environmental
Regional
Some
require general Information from a large region,
parameters
The type and detail
small
""
lists geotochnical
requirad for each of the applications.'
Surveys.
of
not
absence of a performance-related model.
&.1.2 Factors Influencing the Site Survey

2.1.2.1
are
soil properties in drag anchor design due to an
in the
deep ocean.
techniques
analysis
as in the inability to use dynamic
developed,
This chapter sumarizes considerations and
inability to use this data element in
technical
lected,
usually
in-situ tests,
tests.
from
soil
samples
and
froe
when the project warrants such
Geophysical
and geological information
Site Data Requirements for Categories of Geotechnical Engineering Applications
Table 2.1-1.
Requirements for Following Site Data-Topography
Application
Aplcto
Rock
Sediment
"AMterial
Laboratory
Strength
Macro
(>3 ft)
a"
high
Micro
(<3 ft)
Tnickness
Index
Properties
In-Situ
Strength
LabGratory
Strength
Dynamic
Response
Index
Properties
high
low
high
low
high
low
low
low
Deep Foundations/
Pile Anchors
high
low
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
Direct-Eabedent
Anchors
low
high
high
low
high
high
high
high
Drag Anchors
high
low'
high
high
low
low
low
low
Penetration
Ligh
high
high
high
low
high
high
low
low
high
low
high
high
high
low
low
high
high
high
high
low
low
Shallow Foundations/
Deaodweight Anchors
Breakout
Scour
Mgh
high
Slope Stability
high
high
high
atph, madatory; low, can design without; 0 - not
"able 2.1-2.
iled.
Properties
Atterberg
cas:t
Size
Limits
Yet
fat
Yes
oudai n.
Deadweight Anchors
No
Yes
No
Yes
esrvesu.
o
c k Cc
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Depth
of Survey
Sand
Clay
Sand
Clay
Compression
Properties
Strength
Shallow Foundatons
a-
Soil Engineering Parametars Normally Requitred for Categories of

Geotechnicel Engineering Applications
Grain
Soil
-.
cc.s
Yes
1.5 to 2 x foundation
width
2.5 to 2 x anchor width
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
1 to 1.5 x pile group

width, below individual
pile tips
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
To depth of pile anchor

To exvcted penetration
of
anchor; maximu 33 to
S0ft
clay; 13 to 31 ft
sand'
Deep Pile
Foundationa
Yes'
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Pile Anchors
Direct-E. nt
Anchors
Yes
'Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
'
'I
Ma
o
S,I
to SO ft clay; l1 to
.33
16-1/2 ft sand for
Drag Anchors
Yes
Yes
No
Penetration
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Me
No
33 to 50 ft clay; 13 to
33 ft sand
Breakout
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yrs
Yes
No
No
No
1 x object width plus

embedment depth
Scour
Yes
Yes
Mo
Yet
No
No
No
3.3 to 16-1/2 ft;

related to object size
and water motion
Yes
Yes
Yes'
No
33 to 100 ft; moe ona

rare occasions
large anchors
Slope Stability
Yes
e'n
--
Mo
Yes
--
einSection 2.
2-2
m
No
Yes'
No
'
Table 2.1-3.
Historical Environme-%tal Information Needed

to Assess Geotechnical Hazards
Hazard
Information Needed
Earthquakes
Frequency
Magnitude
Peak accelerations
Response spectra
Wind
Velocity distribution
Direction distribution
Maximum wind velocity
Waves
Wave height distribution

Maximum wave height
Direction distribution
Currents
Vertical velocity profile

Distribution of current velocity
beyond that, collected during the regional survey

my
*,
also be needed,
depending
and location of
the vessel with respect to geographical coordi-
complexity.
nates.
2.1.2.4 Hazardous Conditions.

Scope of
the site investigation will be influenced by the
sensitivity of the platform to geotechnical
hazards, including earthquake loading, faulting,
hazadsincudig
erthuak lodin, fultng.
liquefaction, submarine landslides, erosion, and
sophisticated techniques than those used on

Recent developments in electronic comland.
municatlon systems have enasled the surveying of
presence of underconsolidated sediments.

conditions must be assessed for sites
evaluated.
These
being
equipent availability my be the primary 11.1Relative

accuracy.
positioning
on
tation
seafloor-to-surface positions are measured by
Table 2.1-3 outlines historical environmental Informaltion needed for assessment of
sonar pingers and echo-sounding devices to

accuracies on the order of 0.11 of the distance
Due to great distances artd lack of bench

marks, 'positioning offshore often requires more
geotechnical hazards
waves, and currents.
respect to the surface vessel,
on the project
f rom 'earthquakes,
positions at most points on the world's oceans

to a maximum accuracy of 15 meters.
However,
being measured.
winds,
Investigation of environmental factors and

hazardous features can be pursued initisaly by
2.2
an examination of existing, maps, charts, and

bottom
environmental
data
(Section 2.2.1).
2.2.1
2.1.2.5 Positioning 'Capability. The ability to reference a site survey and position a
In a preliminaty survey of a site, one

important step, generally referred to as a "desk
platform on the seafloor may dictate the scope
top study," is the search for available inform-
of' the site investigation.
tion from previous Investigations near the site.

Findings from the desk top survey .can provide,
tion of horizontal
criticsa
nical
A precise determiha-
and vertical
position is a
aspect of both geophysical and geotschinvestigations
PRELIMINARY STUY
Information Sources
information,, as
areal
for a specific' installa-
well as site-specific
and aid In planning for a mere detailed
data,
tion.,
turvey.
"Positioning
usually
requires
an
object on the seafloor

location of the object with
of
2.3
Information can be obtained from,& variety

industrial, and 'educational
governmental,
intitutions.
logical
and
Sources of Data on Earthquakes and Earthquake

Effects
Sources of informatio,, or geogeotechnical properties of ocean
sediments
and on earthquake and earthquake

effects are givcn in the following lists,
American Meteorological Society, Bibliography on

marine selsmics, by 0. Leenhardt, Washington,
(Special bibliographies on oceanD.C., 1967.
ography. Contribution No. 3)
Universities and Government 0-janizations
Bulletin
Chief, Atlantic Branch of Marine Geology, U.S.

Geological
MA 02453 Bldg. 13. Quissett Campus,
Halo, Survey,
Woods
America, P.O. Box 826, Berkeley, CA 94701

American
Research,
Geophysical
of
Journal
Geophysical Union, Suite 435, 2100 Pennsylvania
Chief, Pacific Arctic Branch of Marine Geology,

U.S.
Survey, 345 Mlddlefield Road,
Menlo Geological
Park, CA34025,rse
MnoPrC.45
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20037

Kresge
Seismological
Laboratory,
S~mlgta
aoaoy
Institute of Technology, 220 North
Chief of Operations Division, National Ocean

Atmospheric
and
Oceanic
National
Survey,
Administration,
1439
W.
York
Street,
Norfolk, VA
23510
A prime source of
Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91105.
earthquake Information.
at
Report 181:
Mine Defense Laboratory.
Navy
Bibliography on sieches, by FC.W. Olson, Panama
Chief of Operations Division, National Ocean

Survey,
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
East
Fairview Avenue,
1802
Administration,
Seattle, WA 98102
City, Fla., Aug 1962.
Observatory
Geological
Lamont-Doherty
Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964
of
Society
of
of
Hawaii,
Hawaii
Mongo,
U.S. Geological Survey,

Menlo Park, CA 94025
Institute
Bunkyo-Ku,
345 Middlefield
Road,
2.2.2.1
Sediment Types.
Seafloor
soils
Civil Engineering in the Oceans (I through IV),

American Society
of Civil
Engineers, 345 East
47thStretNewYor,
N 1017-398gravels.
ga
47th Street, New.York, NY 10017-2398

of, Civil
Terrigenous soils, described below, include

sands, silts, and clays.
These soils
the deep sea; and contain >30% s-ilt and sandsized particles of land origin.
Marine Geotechnology,
Crane,
Russals & Co.,
Inc., 3 East 44th Street, New York, NY 10017
TerriQenous Silty Clays,

daring continents
Ocean Engineering,
Pergai-n
Park, Elmsford, NY 10523
Turbiditos
sand, silt,
and clay
deposits transported great distances
Into deep water areas by turbidity
currents; characterized by graded beds*sands at bottom grading to clays at top
Fairview
I
Houston,
-,
....
are formed on or adjacent to land; are trans,

ported by currents, wind, or iceberg rafting to
Engi-
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American

345 East 47th
Society of Civil Engineers,
Street, Now York, NY 10017-2398
Conftrence,
Tmvical Ocean Soils
are referred to by origin as either terrigenous

(land-derived)
or
pelagic
(ocean-derived).
Technology
"
Tokyo,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, National Research

Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada
Offshore
(yearly)
.-.-
Woods
2.2.2
Press,
Seismological Depart-
University
Journals and Conference Proceedinas
Geotechnique, The Institution

nears, Lond:in, England
.'.
(AD 283510)
of
of
','-
California
Clfri
San Rafael
Institute
Hawaii
University of Hawaii,
Geophysics, Honolulu, Hawlaii 96822.
University of Tokyo,
Japan.
La Jolla,
Institution,
Seismological
Geophysics, Report HIG6725. Bibliography to the

preliminary catalog of tsunamis occurring in the
Pacific Ocean, by K. Iida, D.C. Cox, and G.
Pararas-Carayannis, Honolulu, Hawaii, Dec 1967.
Naval Oceanographic Office, Code 3100, National

Space Technology Laboratories, N$fL Station, MI
39522
Woods Hole Oceanographic

Hole, MA 02543
the
University of California,
ment, Berkeley, CA 94720.
Notional Geophysical and Solar-Terrestrial Data

Center, Environmental Data Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder,
CO 80302
Scripps Institution of Oceanography,

CA 92093
of
Tex.
2.4
or Muds - bar-
"-'"
* Slide Deposits and Volcanic Ash derived from slumps on marine slopes or
from volcanoes
eous ooze (a sediment composed of at least 30%

by weight of remains of organisms whose hard
parts are calcium carbonate) is usually found at
Glacial Marine Soils- coarse-grained

sediments produced by glacial scouring
of land features
Pelagic
soils,
pelagic clays,
described
seafloor
Sediment Consisency.
2.2.2.2
composed of clays or their alteration products
are
or skeletal material from plants or animals; and
soil:
cover 75% of the seafloor.
and
depth
is
Three terms
used to describe the existing state of a

overconsolidated,
have
been
normally consolidated,
Overconsolidated
underconsolidated.
ments
*
the
and calcareous
These soils are formed in the sea; are
oozes.
where
tivity, usually
below the CCD.
include
below,
siliceous oozes,
Siliceous oe
depths shallower then the CCD.
are found in ocean areas of high surface produc-
subjected
sedi-
to a greater
load
(overburden) in the past than exists at present.

They have been compressed and become stronger.
Pelagic Clays - contain <30% biogenous

material, silty clays of very high
plasticityI
The overconsolidation (OC) phenomenon can also
result from many chemical or physical processes,.
* Authigenic Deposits - minerals precipitated and crystallized in seawater,

predominantly manganese nodules and
phillipsite
*
Normally consolidated (MC) materials have never

been loaded by overlying material more than they
are
are
now. .Underconsolidated
sediments
"young.K That is, they have not come to equi-
Biogenous Sediments - derived from

marine organisms and plants
librium with the weight of overlying materials

and are weaker than they will be -when this
Calcareous Oozes - contain >30%

biogenous calcium carbonate material,
includes coralline deposits, calcareous sands Coolithes) and shells, and
fine-grained remains of microscopic
animals (oozes)
equilibrium is reached.
Permeability characteristics generally limit underconsolidation to the
fine-grained cohesive soils.
The degree of consolidation is important to
Siliceous Oozes - contain >30% sillceous fine-grained remains of plants

and animals
a site
it dictates
investigation because
the
existing state and,

Figure 2.2-1
surface
The
sediments
shows
the
d Atribution
over
the
world's
continental
shelves
and
nous
sediment
continental
strength
are
generally
proportion
Terrige-
to
the weight
with
depth--in
of soils which lie
For a particular soil, strength at equal
above.
the
depths below the seafloor will be greatest for

overconsolidated soils and least for undercon-
be
found
beyond
abyssal plain, as a result of transport by slope
solidated soils.
failures and turbidity currents.
Inversely
The composi-
with
tion of terrigenous sediment will vary according
being
to its source,
underconsolidated.
the distance from its source, and
the regional geology.
least
rect
ly of wind-blown dust (pelagic clays) or caicar-
normally
sediments
biogenous
materials.
The
of
consolidation,
for overconsolidated. and most for

it
is usually cor-
and conservative to assume that they are
eous
siliceous
Soil compressibility will vary

the, degree
For pelagic sediments,
The pelagic sediments are composed primarior
increases
on the continental rise and
may also
slope,
the material.
oceans.
slones
characterized by terrigenous deposits.
of
therefore,. the strength of

In a norma'ly consolidated soil,
consolidated.
In contrast,
are often overconsolidated,
neershore
particu-
pelagic clays are usually found at water depths
larly those sediments that were exposed when the
deeper
sea
(CCD)
than
the
carbonate
[Figure 2.2-2].
compensation
depth
The CCO is defined as the
level
present.
depth above which the calcium carbonate dissolu*

tion is less than the carbonate supply. Calcar-
was
significantly
lower
than
at
No consistent rule exists for locating
overconsolidated sediments except.that exposed

locations (such as tops of rfses or passages)
2-S
I-10
OWO
C;
uo
.#
2-4
'I-i
444
CL
0.20
aa
\..*
..
-2-7
i76
are more likely to be overconsolidated than are

dated sediments
the
In active river deltas,
Mississippi
River
increase
little-to-no
Delta,
in
soil
the sediment is
shelf
assumed terrigenous.
be
Available National Ocean Survey charts should be

consulted to determine whether the sediment is
or cohesive (mud
increasing depth aelow the sea bottom.
primarily cohesionless (sandy)
For
2.2.2.3 Estimatinga Soil Properties.
planning a geotechnical survey or design of a
cohesive,
is
the sediment
If
clay).
or
Figure 2.2-4 is used for the strength distribu-
nonsensitive,
bottom-resting
A
tion of a normally consolidated sediment.
literature search is made for strong indications
estimates
device,
of the soil engineering properties can be devel-
of overconsolidation (e.g., Pcorded outcrops of

older sediments or an exposed location such as
If
rise top, high recorded bottom currents).
sufficient evidence exists
odo
rdn
twudb that overconsolidated
sisaessetd
marine geological province is

probable soil type for that
the
First,
known.
province is identified from Figure 2.2-3; then
the soil shear strength and buoyant unit weight
oped
when
the
oils are suspected,
from data extrapola2.2-4 through 2.2-8.

Figures
in
tions presented
parmeters
i'.SHELF
and
with
may
strength
types
When the site is on the continental

or slope,
such as near
there
sediment
they apply to specific chapter subjects.*
are almost always found where
fine-grained soils are being deposited at a very

high rate.
of
properties can be found in other chapters where
Underconsoli-
protected areas (such as basins).
discussion
Additional
are estimated
CONTINENTAL
CONTINENTAL
some
penetrometers
iOCE
ABYSSAL
ABYSSAL
IHILLS
IRISE
IPLAIN I
RISE
it would be prudent to drop

or short gravity corers.
AND RIDGE
AND SLOPE
BELOW
CCD**
ABOVE
CCD$*
L-17 PELAGIC CLAY!
"PELAGIC CLAY
OR
CALCAREOUS
(OR SILICEOUS
OOZE
TURBIDITE
ITERRIGENOUSI
ABOVE
CCD$*
OOZE)
(CLAY-SILT-SAND)
(OP. SILICEOUS OOZE)I

ABOVEBEO
**CCD ISTHE CARBONATE
COMPENSATION DEPTH (THE
DEPTH BELOW WHICH, CARBONATE
MATERIALS WILL DISSOLVE)
0 FT
10,000
COARSE
FINE
Figure 2.2-3 Marine geolngical provinces and probable sHil typos.
AExamples: In Chapter 3, Section 3.5,

engineering property correlations with easily
In
measured soil index properties are given.
Chapter 5, Section 5.3. typical soil properties
of cohesionless and cohesive materials are
In
listed for use in pile problem solutions.
Chapter 6, Section 6.6, typical values for soil
permeability are listed for estimating cyclic
load capacity of direc~t-eabedment anchors.
248
W)4fld-f ua,.qqnq
CL
e0 E
C'L
-9-
o2.
4-
o~
CL
C4
22
5t4-
2-9-
.4
-
*a
0
-
(44)
.4
-
qd(
aa4aaa4qqnq
*
-
C
-
0
*4
.4
N
C
.4
t
.4
0
.4
.1
Ia
- -
U
*5I
0. C
A
-
..
10
.2
.4
Iaa.
ZAj
t1
4.-
a;
-I-
4-.0
0.
.
4..
C
*
I.
@2*
a
44
I-
-r
*
c.
I0I?
(.4
*-.
U.
.*
(Ii) qadia URIa).qft
.4
.4
-
.4
-
C
-
0
.4
N
.4
C
.4
.4
S
.4
0
.4
@1
02 .E
0244
00
a
a
0
-*
.4--
A.
*4.
.8
b-'
4-
--
0
-.
a0
.4-
22
U.
8
9
.4.
4'
a.
4.-
aIa.
II'
U
S
a;
Aaj
I.
C
0
a
-I
I.-
2.10
.........................................................................
1O
.00
30
40
50
ihe"r
Note: Curve ba*d o w %
te~t. of 12 10-m p'Stot eo
from the Equstonai Pwifi
Data at greatr vabboim deptba

from maial ten fabnecam.
20-
30-
35 jet
10
5..|0okh
40-
7b - 25 b1,
40 b/tft,
to
1*
ISat ,
",0 -20
-0-
so-
I 1kg/m,- 0.062 lb/ft 35

I m .13 ft
go-
I kth - 0. 14S Mb/i 2
"_I
"
ta(p.O
Figure Z2-11 Typical strength profile for siliceous ooze.
with
penetration
or
slight
Nonpenetratlon
"attainment of minimal sample' length suggests
overconsolidated
that
""tinental
sand properties
Typical
exist.
""
Figure 2.2-5..
sediment
indeed
does
are
given
[Figure 2.2-2].
in
1.
a large
If the location is nea
active river delta, the site must b surveyed

iet.be
directly.
When the site location is bryonc the 'conmargins, the probable sedimen type can
be identified from Figure 2.2-1.
ment
*is classed
as a
If the sedi;ig ure 2.2-5
turbidite,
gives typical parameterS for proximal

turbidites.
The distinction
nd distal
is made based on
the distance from a source of sand (e.g., the

if
edge of the continental shelf) as fo lows:
"the distance is greeter than about 30 iles, the
2.
.
the
If abovei the, CCD,
probably calcareous ooze.
sediment is
Figure 2.2-6
gives the typical properties; it should

noted that a further subdivision'
between coarse and fine ooze is made at
the 10,000-foot level.
If the site is below the CCO, the
sediment is probably pe'lagic clay or a
Figure 2.2-7 presents
siliceous ooze.
estimates of properties for a pelagic
clay.
Whenever possible, specialists in

soi ls behavior should be consulted as
Provide information difficult to glean
Many parts of the
open literature.
seafloor
they can
from the
seafloor
and
sediment is probably a distal turbidit.,
have bee" mapped for sediment distributions,
the sediment Is classed as a siliceous

ooze (diatom or rediolarian ooze, Flgur 2.2-1),
much more detailed information than is given in

In addition,
this discussion may be available.
If
the,
typical
properties
can
be
found
In
Ftgurr 2.2-8.
If the site Is in the deep ocean in' not an
(2-11
abyssal plain, it must be determined whether its

water depth lies above or below the CCO
many core smple descriptions are available.

Sources for experts, maps, and core descriptions
are"listed in Section 2.2.1.
2.3
REGIONAL SURVEY
layers)
with different
"portion
2.3.1
General
of
the
[Figure 2.3-1(a)].
acoustic properties,
Sprofiling,
survey techniques include seismic

limited soil sampling,
side-scan
sonar surveys,
and direct (visual)
observation,
reflection profiling is commonly used for studying the upper 300 feet of soil.
qualitative only from the standpoint of physical
are
soil behavior.
boomers, or sparkers.
seismic profiling
often
referred
as
These devices
sediment
their transmission frequency and, consequently,

the penetration of the signal and its resolving
little
if any
information
about
soil
power.
In general, lower frequencies produce

greater penetration with lover resolution, while
high-frequency
2.3.2
Seismic Profilina
but
have
systems
greater
yield
less penetration
resolution.
Seismic, or acoustic, profiling techniques

use reflected sound signals to develop a profile
of the seafloor topography and subbottom layering.
Compressive waves formed by a controlled
sounder system to delineate the sediment strata,

near-surface rock contact, and surface faulting.
source
propagate
outward
through
the
Additional
discussion of acoustic profil-
seawater at a certain velocity. When the campressive wave encounters another medium (i.e.,
ing, and the important role it

ating slope stability problems,
surficial
Chapter 11, Section 11.6.3.1.
sediments or deeper,
denser sediment
"Table 2.3-1.
1
plays in evaluis presented in
Steps in a Typical Regional Survey
Steps
Procedure
Perform literature and data bank search
Identify facility to be installed
3
4
Identify parameters that impact on siting and design of facility

Plan acoustfc reconnaissance program for identifylis relevant
(a) Acoustic subbottom profiler
(b) Survey line spacing, 500 ft

Plan shallow samlng program consistent with geotechnical hazard
identification and soil parameter evaluation
(a) Gravity cores
(b) One core psi 1/4 mi2
6
"7
S(c)
*
8
;sites
Perform acoustic and shallow sampling 'sur-ey

Assign soil tests, test soil, and select design soil parameters;
for each 6-1/2 ft of core:
(a) Two bulk unit weight tests
(b) Two water content tests
Two grain size analyses (for sand and silt)
(d) One Atterberg Limit test (cohesive soils only)
(e) One shear strength test (cohesive soils only)
In post survey, evaluate cost versus risk tradeoff for proposed
and select and rank the sites
wr
S~2-12
r
Typically,
geotechnical engineering needs are best served

using a 12-kHz sounder system to develop profiles of the seafloor surface and a 3.5-kHz
sound
,'
sounders,
They are characterized by
can be used to delineate major soil layers but

Table 2.3-1 summarizes the steps
in a typical regional survey.
'I
to
gives
consistency.
S.
producing a pro-
file of acoustic interfaces in the sediments.

High-resolution,
continuous,
seismic
OData obtained from the regional survey are often

For example,
reflected
The-times of arrival of the
reflected waves are recorded,

Regional
is
energy
Radio, positioning
Dee-Twtysem
Acous-icosntec
~
oar"ih"--I
Side~
~~o
scn
"ysems
cosirofiling
Figur P31
3fshSona
2.3.3
Limited 'Sapling
slope
stability
Chapter 11,
problems,
is
presented
in
Section 11.6.3.2.
Rtgional surveys should include sowe bottom
"
sampling in order to provide examples of surficial sediment types and consistencies.

of
outcropping
filing
and
sediment
layers,
surficial
sampling
2.3.5
Visual Observation
In areas
acoustic
pro-
can
used
be
Visual
by
made
observations
three
together to provide information on the sediment
observation,
type
subbottom
camera,
for
can make
and
layers
projected
an
of
properties
of
Samplers
used
area.
such
and
general
of
use
(3)
underwater
In
a deep-diving vehicle,
and
corers,
rock
dredges.
i.
sampling equipment
included
discussion
in
of
when
Visual
other
are
direct
controlled
television.
Divers
shallow water.
such as the Deep Quest or
observations
survey
become
techniques
necessary site data.

2.3.4
(1)
deep water, direct observations are made from
Turtle.
Section 2.4.
seafloor
remotely
direct observaticns, in
cated Variety--the
short gravity
the
methods:
(2)
surveys would generally be of the less sophistigrab samplers,
of
necessary
cannot
For example,
provide
remote survey
techniques are not able, to delineate the extent
Side-Scan Sonar
of a talus deposit at the base. of a steep rock

Side-scan
sonar
systems
provide
records that show two-diaensional

the
seafloor
well
as gas
Seafloor
topography.
graphic
slope.
infilling,
as
objects
side-scan
sonar operates
waves
in
sonar
bee
The fish is
dictated
system.
The'
side-scan
For
pulses
from a
by
the
chosen
are
range.
The
Major
fish
structures
following
these
on
reflected signals
a dual-channel
scale selected,
systems
transform
image
into an acoustic
recorder.
Depending
installations,
risk
a
(un-
regional
general
as
(such
informa-
panned
platforms or pile-supported platforms),

may require
acquisition
low
is available.
and transmitted by electrical cable to the ship.

data
cost)
relatively
not be required if
On
deck,
and
tion on bathymetry and stratigraphy at the site
returning
received by the same
low
survey may
towed above the seafloor at a height
acoustic signals
small
manned,
transducer
towed off the stern of a ship.
"fish" that is
information.
such
Show the operation
by emitting high-frequency sound
narrow
provide
could
Survey Line Spacing
2.3.6
Figures 2.3-1(a) and (b)

a
pos-
are detected and displayed
bubbles
as in an aerial pnotograph.
of
A survey by a manned submersible,
sibly with some waterJetting to remove sediment
plan views of
a full-scale
guidelines
regional survey.
are
suggested
spacing of regional surveys
on the
where
this image can record a conttnu-
the overall
gravity
however,.
for
The
mesh
for such structures
survey area is
to cover a 1-
by 1-mile area.
ous path of the seafloor from 300 to 3,000 feet

Figure 2.3-1(b)
wide..
shows
an
*xample
of
bathymetric surveys, a mesh spacing of

about 100 feet is recommended at locations
where significant bottom change is occurring,
aFor
s'de-scan record.
The
side-scan sonar
to detect
ships,
seafloor obstructions,
pipelines,
outcrops.
scan
By
sonar
sometimes
technique
studying the
survey,
aL
be avoided in
such as sunken
flows,
sediment
and
a spacing of 500 feet is recommended at
other locations.
other
loctn
s.
can be used
results
4-desirable
and'
of a
site
rock
side-
ous.
can
preliminary site selec-
tion.
Additional
techniques, .a
discussion
of
side-scan
The mesh spacing for subbottom profiling is

essentially
the same
as for bathymetric
If the soil is generally homogenesurvey.
sonar
the role they ptay in evaluating
2-14
the
profile
spacing
can be
increased.
'
2.4.1
In deeper waters, sampling

land or near shore.
Gravity
must bit done from a floating vessel.
r:,aral
properties
Soil
"
cated equipment and techniques than sampling on
SITE-SPECIFIC SURVEY
2.4
at
a site can be estab-
waters the techniques
are
usually
deep ocean is limited by the handling capability
In the deep ocean,
of the supporting vessel and the weather condiTable 2.4-1
smmarizes
sediments often involves
more compli-
typical site-specific survey.
the steps of
Steps in a Typical Site-Specific Survey
Steps
Procedure
1
2
3
4
Check data bank and literature search for completeness

Identify facility to be installed
Identify soil paraters and geotechnical hazards impacting on
design
of types
facility
of information needed to complement existing
Identify.
data (from preliminary studies and regional survey) (see
Tables 2.1-1 and 2.1-21
Perform acoustic data collecti', as necessary to complete
data collection
(a) Close survey line spacing to 100 ft
(b) Make additional or more accurate seafloor profiling
(deep tow) and subbottom profiling
Complete shallow samling; my be sufficient for platform type
and s'ize
(a) Gravity corer generally acceptable

(b) Spacing of coring locations, 300 ft
(c) Core to a depth of 1.5 times expected width of foundation:
or to maximau expected penetration of anchor, if possible
Perform deep smpling where necessary; use in-situ tests for
high-risk platforms
(a) Core to a depth of 1.5 to 2.0 times expected width of
foundation or to maximum expected penetration of anchor
(b) Saling frequency (ithin
The
utilizing a jackup
tion.
to
drilling rigs and wire-
line sampling techniques are normally used.
the sampling
used
to 20 feet.
performance of these sampling techniques in the
Table 2.4-1.
-.
10
upper
the great water deoth,
because of
soil
in the
of drilling and samplng
barge or a fixed platform.

of
samples
Generally, in shallow
used on land can be adapted,
and
obtain
Below this soil depth,
lished by sampling the soil and returning it to

a laboratory for testing.
vibracorers
corers
single boring):
(1) One smple/5 ft, up to 30 ft

(2) One sample/lO ft, between 30- and 200-ft Interval
(3) One sample/20 ft. over 200 ft
(c) In-situ tests:
(1) Use vane for clay undrained properties
(2) Use cone penetrometer for sand or clay and to define
strata boundaries
(3) Use pressuremeter for soil ,deformation properties
(4) Oefine strata boundaries by borehole logging
Assign soil tests, test soil samples, and select design
parameters. For every core sample:
(a) One water content test
(b) One bulk unit weight test
(c) One grain size analyses
(d) One Atterberg Limit test every other samle
(cohesive soils only)
"(e) Shear strength tests (cohesive soils only)
2-1.
"
Shallow Soil Sampler Types and Applications
Table 2.4-2.
I aximus
Seaer Type
ype
Sampler
Qual
ity,
sample
Length
Sample
Comments
Application
(Vt)
Grab Sampler
'low
Box Corer
very high
Gravity Corer
Free Fall
Short Corer
Long Corer
high
4
10
30
Vibracorer
moderate
20-40
Soil identification
Index property tests
Inexpensive;, no water depth

limitation
Soil identification,
Sample for:
strength test
index test
No water depth limitation;

pretripping causes delays in deep
water; best for seas below 7 ft
Sample for:
strength test
index test
Free-fall is limited to 20,000 ft

and may be difficult to find upon
surfacing; others can use piston
for higher smple quality; no
water depth limitation; specialty
piston corers can sample deeper
soils
Saple for:
Used primarily in sands; water

depth limited by power umbilicals
index test
2.4.2
Shallow Sampling
2.4.2.2
8ox Corers.
Box
corers
"
obtain
large volume of relatively undisturbed surficial

Shallow soil sealing is usually conducted
as
part
seafloor
regional
of the
installations,
survey.
soil.
For small
A box corer
typically consists of a weight column,
shallow-penetration
samples may provide the sotl parameters reqtired

for foundation design.
Sample sizes range from 1 to 2 feet in
height and 0.2S to 3 ft2 in area.
sample
spade lever arm, and a tripod support frame
'box,
(Figure 2.4-2].
The equipment used for
shallow sampling in the deep ocean includes grab

or dredge samplers, box corers, gravity corers,
and submersible platform corers.
A summary of
shallow sampling tools and theirv application is
given'in Table 2.4-2.
2.4.2.1
dredge
simplest
samples.
,.
Grab or Dredge Samplers.

(Figure 2.4-1]
samplers
method
for
Because
obtaining
samples
Grab or
offer
the
seafloor
soil
by
this
obtained
Von Veen Sample
method suffer from significant disturbance, grab

or dredge samples have little value in eveluating soil strength characteristics.
ort
Large grab
ell
..
Sx
samplers are,
however, often the only meats for

taking samples of gravels and pebbles for surfi
'M"
cial sediment' identification.

The washing out
of fines during sample recovery can be
problmlpp
with grab samplers.
This can be minimized by
......
use of samplers designed 'to minimize such sample

loss (Ref 2-31.
Figure 2.41. Grab samplers and dredges (from Ref 2-13).
2-16
(a) Descentmanwe
hook
wright column
box
(b) Box penetration

into sediment
(c) Spade rotation

(box clowac)
(d) Ascent following

box-withdrawal
ICA
Figure 2.42. Box cowe and its operation sequence.
2-17.
Gravity Corers.
2.4.2.3
short corers and their use is limited to approx-
corers
Gravity
imately the upper 10 feet of the seafloor.
are tube samplers that are driven into the soil

by
the
kinetic
The
piston corer incorporates a piston fixed at the
of their falling mass.
energy
Mo-t gravity corers are lowered by winch through
mudltne
during
the water column and free-fall through only the
recovery
and
last 10 to
gravity corers incorporate p lastic barrel liners
being
20 feet' of the water columnn after
released by bottom contact, of a trigger
is
not
used,
the
by
free-wheeling
Benthos
of
handling,
the winch,
corer,
boomerang
is
can
lists
,corers may be of open-barrel
quality.
soil
most
and use core catchers to limit core
loss during retrieval.
through the entire water colmmn.

Gravity
soil
improve
A comprehensive discus-
sion of corer performance and coring techniques
not
attached to the surface by catble and free-falls
piston type.
recovered
to
to promote sample quality and post-recovery soil
weight [Figure 2.4-3] or, when a trigger weight

One,
penetration
be
found
teristics,
or,
in
Reference 2-4.
many gravity corer types,

and comments
Table 2.4-3
their charac-'
on their performance.
Open-barrel corers are relatively
free
fa
lowering'
lowerin-
Partial
fun,
penetration
penetration
hauling in
cable
,.retease
corer
piston
fall
loop
~'
. .
. . .. . ...
..............
.
tnwX
XX-'""
..
....
. . .. . .
..
...
.. .....
......
te rigger
Figure
rig
wigl
2.4-3. Long piston corer operation sequence with a short

corer uzed asa trigge
"wght
TIhie 2.4-3.
rWater
Mae
Maker or
Contractor
Characteristics of Some Free-Fall and Lowered Corers

esi,,
Designation
of Unit
Typeof
Link
jpe of Unit
Dater
Depth
(ft)
ii
Penetration
(ft)
Samp
Remarks
ecovered
Free-Fall Corers
HydroProducts
Bouma-Box
Sampler
Flexible
Unlimited
1.5
Rectangular
coras seasuring 200 by
7an
Device usable for

samoling fine sand-
HydroProducts
Moore Free
Corer
Autonomous
Unlimited
2.0
5.0
62-mr-diam
cores
Autunomous unit
that can be used
Benthos
Boomerang
Free Fall
Autonomous
20,000
65-rna-dim
cores
Unit can be used

in soft soils
Reinecke
Long Reinecke
Flexible
Unlimited
150- by 150-mm
Collapsible
sheath
in soft soils
10
4.0
<30
cores
I
C
Corers Lowered by Cable
Inventor:
Kereabon
Saclant CEN
Benthos
Model 2450
Gravity
Piston
Alpine
Geophysical
Associates
Comex
Inventor:
Ewing
2.4.2.4
Unlimited
About 35-50
Flexible
Unlimited
10-25
58-mm-diam
cores
Unit can be used in

soft soils
Gravity corer
Flexible
Unlimited
10 or 16
Wam dim
cores
Unit can be used in

muds and soft clays
Kullenberg
corer
Flexibse
Ulimited
16-32
63- and 85-mrdiam cores
Can be adapted to
pressuremeter
Corer
Kullenberg
corer
Flexible
Unlimited
65
54-mr-dim
cores
Unit can.be used in

soft soils
"Giant Corer"
Kullenberg
corer
Flexible
Unlimited
>65
10 me
Unit used in soft

soils
Vibracorers.
Vibracorers are used
less
where gravity corers
necessity to supply power from a vessel down to
then 600-fost water depths because of the
limited
strength
penetration.
of a
The
core barrel
supported
Figure 2.4-4.
piston
by
The
source.
typical
and
vibracorer
and driver-vibrator
stand,
as
driver-vibrator
eccentric
variety,
pneumatic,
shown
may
weight
or
it
be, powered
hydraulic,
may
or
soft
In
vibratory
only slight
differences
preferences.
Most are
of material
sediment
length Is
reciprocating
by
Is
being corea.
encountered,
Unless very
coring
maximum
limited to 40 to 50 feet.
electrohydraulic
corers--sm,
Offshore
engineering
inves-
on piles,
with
and
to accommodate company
limited, to operation
Deep Semplina
2.4.3
fost government and cummercial organi-
maintain
Albility to penetrate varies with the
be of a
zations interested in mairio geotechnical

tigations
(soils of
low consolidation)
65-rndiam
cores
50
the corer.
rotating
Unit has been

improved to reduce
disturbance;
large
diameter cores
(samples are
representative)
Unit can be used in
sediments of low
consolidation
Unlimited
often fall to retain core or are capable of only
unit
Cores about
120 mmin
diameter
Flexible
cohesionless sediments,
consists
Flexible
Gravity and
piston corer
(Kullenberg
type)
Piston corer
Casting Corer
Techniques
Louis Menard
(TLM)
Station de
Geodynami que
sous-sarine
Villefranchesur-mer
in
Improved
Kullenberg
type
2-19
especially
is
require
equipment
for
sapling
samples.
higher
and
major
those placed
deep soil
of reopasentative
techniqmus
sophistication
in
Investigations
requitexpensive
recovery
boring
site
structures,
in
Deep
'level
the
of
drill
samplers.
The wire-line hammer sampler uses
successive vertical blows to advance the sampler
and provides somewhat disturbed samples. However, it is economical and provides adequate
information for pile design. Wire-line push
samplers advance the sampler with a continuous
motion, which produces less soil sample disturbance. However, the operation of a push sampler
requires a fairly calm sea since the motion of
the ship is transferred to the sampler through,
the drill pipe. A limited number of drill shipi
do compensate for motion, with specialty equipment, but this is an expensive complication to
the basic drilling operation.
The depth to which soil sampling is necessary depends on the type and size of the structure. For most pile foundations, the borehole
should be at least as deep as the anticipated
pile penetration plus three pile diameters. For
A
-of
gravity structures the borehole depths are

usually between one and two times the diameter
the foundation, depending on soil conditions.
In general, the softer the subsurface soils, the
deeper the borehole required.
The sampling
frqec frabohlenmlyvriswt
Figure 2Z4-4. Alpine vibracore sampler (from Ref 2-5).
depth as approximated in Table 2.4-1.

A discussion of borehole logging techniques
fradtoa
nomto
bu
olsrtg
vessel or platform than l~sneeded to perform

*shallow
sampling. Drilling and samplinig opera-
tions are generally carried out from a fixed
*platform,
a jackup platform, an anchored barge
*
or ship, or a dynkamically positioned ship.
The most versatile and economical approach
today to obtain deep samples at sea is wire-line
sampling, which involves use of an anchored ship
with a centerwell. Regular oil platform supply
*boats,
which are about 150 to 200 feet long, are
generally suitable for this type of operation.
Dril Iing i s performed wi ih a rotary ri g mounted
on the. ship deck over the centerwell.. The drill
bit is advanced into the soil by rotating a
drill pipe while pumping drilling fluid down the
*pipe.
The fluid carries the soil cuttings to
*
.
the seafloor surface and is not returned to the
*ship
(open circulation).
The drill bit' and
casing are advanced to the elevation where a
*sample
is desired and then the sample is taken.
One of two sampler types is used: wI reline hameor samplers and wire-line push
raphy is given in Section 2.5.6.

2.4.4 -Location, Number,_and Depth of Sampling
The recommended 'location and number of
bcrings are based on structure purpose and size,
s afloor bathymetry, slope angle of the soil
sirata, and uniformity of the acoustic profiles.
For most structures, ,if the acoustic profiles
ae practically uniform over an extensive area,
ore deep boring at the ceinter-of the structure
1ocation along with other, more shallow, data is

often sufficient. If the seismic records display a number of irregularities, more deep
b rings should be drilled. For small, low-risk
irstal~latlons, afew gravity cores taken at the
site may provide sufficient information for
f undation design.
The depth to which soil sampling is -necessa
depends on the type and size of the structure. 'For most pilefJoundations, the borehole
2.20
should be at least as deep as the anticipated

pile penetration plus three pile diameters. For
gravity structures the borehole depths are
usually between one and two times the diameter
of the foundation, depending on soil conditions.
In general, the softer the subsurface soils, the
deeper the borehole required.
The sampling
frequency for a borehole normally varies with
depth as approximated in Table 2.41.
A discussion of borehole logging techniques
for additional information about soil stratig-
"raphyis
given in Section 2.5.6.
Preparing and Packaging. To mini-
mize sample disturbance, cores must be prepared

and packaged for shipment as soon as possible
after recovery,
For gravity cores, liners should be pulled
out of the barrel and cut into sections 3 to
2.4.5.3 Transit.
Samples
should
be
shipped to 'the laboratory as soon as possible
after the vessel arrives in port. Undisturbed
samples are best "hand-carried," either as
Sample Handling
"2.4.5.1
"'-
Sbox
"W.
0
'.:
2.4.5.2 Storage.
Proper sample storage
prior to testing is somewhat controversial.
It
is usually best that samples are stored vertically, when possible,
to maintain their
natural orientation and to limit mixing or
changes in stress conditions. Cushioning should
be used toprotect the samples from vibration.
Samples should be stored at 5 2*C in near 100%
relative humidity and away from direct sunlight
to prevent biological growth and other physical
alterations that might otherwise occur.
2.4.5
.--
liner is then sealed with plastic caps, tape,

and wax.
Cohesionless sediments are usually
stored loose in bags or jars because they are
quite disturbed in the coring process.
"6feet
long. The top and bottom of each section

and the position of each section in the core
should be marked on the liner. The ends of the
liner tube should be sealed with plastic caps
and electrical t.ipe and preferably sealed again
with an appropriate wax.
carry-on luggage in an airplane or in a private

vehicle rather than by commercial carrier. For
larger shipments, where personal control is not
possible, air freight is recommended since it
minimizes the time in transit and also reduces
vibration and shocks that might further disturb
With box corers, the metal corer box is not

watertight.
It is very difficult to maintain
the sample.
Samples should be tested as soon as possible because even proper storage will only slow
down and not stop sample property changes that
occur with time.
corer samples at their natural water content.

For quality samples, shipboard subsampling of the recovered sample should be done as
soon as possible.
Many large-diameter liners
"with sharpened ends are pushed from top to
bottom of the box sample with a rapid and continuous motion. *When all liners have 'been
pushed into the box, the sediment around the
liners is removed and can be saved in jars or
plastic bags for tests that do not require
undisturbed samples.
The subsamples in the
liners are then sealed and marked.
Wire-line samples are usually extruded
onboard the ship. Clay sediments are normally
cut into sections about three diameters long.
Each section is then wrapped with wax paper and
aluminum foil and sealed with wax in a plastic
container. .If liners' are used, the liners are
extruded and separated using a wire saw. Each
2.5
2.5.1
IN-SITU TESTING
General
In-situ testing procedures involve making

measurements within the soil with specialized
equipment. The most common measurements are for
the 'undrained strength of 'clays, the drained
friction angle for sands, and soil modulus of
elasticity.
The attraction of the in-situ test approach
is that toils are not removed from their native
environment during property evaluation. Marine
soil samples are normally subjected to an appreciable disturbance and a decrease in hydrostatic
2.21
and confining
from
the
soil
seabed
decrease results
internal
with
pressure
to
the
in
sea
bringing
surface.
tests,
soil information derived from each, and

data evaluation will be discussed in subsequent
This
in further disturbance to the
structure of the soil.
disturbance
subsequent
them
introduced
sample handling,
sections.
When combined
by
sampling
the
total
and
distur-
2.5.2
bance can mask the actual in-situ properties of

the soil.
This is particularly true in soft
Vane Shear Tests

In the vane shear test, the torque required
cohesive soils containing appreciable dissolved,
to
gases,
soil is measured and converted into a measure of
such
Mexico.
as
those
For these
found
soils,
in
the
decreases
Gulf
of
rotate a four-bladed
in hydro-
the
shear strength
static stress often result in gases coming out
the
vane
of
solution,'
which
completely
disturbs
and
Relatively
of
few
pieces
of
equipment
size is
of the soil.
dictated
in the
Selection of
by the anticipated
are
the
rate
equipment.
are
Vane geometry and rotation
standardized
[Ref 2-7].
However,
available to do in-situ testing, and these tests
offshore operations typically vary somewhat' from
"generally represent
the standardized rotation rate of 6 deg/min due
at least a tenfold increase
in cost over gravity or piston coring.

Thus,
in-situ tests are employed only when data of
to
"satisfactory quality
able
cannot be obtained through
shallow coring and acoustics--as,

when
measuring
the
engineering
sands and gassy sediments.

Table 2.5-1 summarizes
Table 2.5-1.
Test
Performed
Vane Shear
Static Cone
Penetrometer
properties
of
the operator's experience and preference.

In-situ vane shear test devices are availfor either wire-line operation
drill string at the bottom of a borehole or from
of
a seafloor resting platform [Table 2.5-1].
in-situ
The types of
Parameter
Obtained
force (the underwater weight of the system) to
Paraeter
Apparatus
Type
Appaatus(feet)
Designation
Operational Limits
,
e,
Water
_Depth
Cohesive
Cohesionless
and Cohesive
su
*, or
su1j,Cv~k
The
maximum depth of test for the seafloor resting

systems is limited by the available reaction
Wire-Line
Platform
McClelland
Remote Vane
Halibut
MITS
Lehigh
Wire-Line
Platform
Wison
XSP-40
"MITS
Stingray
"Seacalf
Dynamic (Free
Fall)
Penetrometer
Cohesionless
and Cohesive
su
Pressuremeter
Cohesionless
and Cohesive
suE
Wire-Line
Platform
Menard
Menard (driven)
IFP (self-boring)
Cohesionless
and Cohesive
y , soil
layer
boundarie_
Wire-Line
Gama Log, E-Log,

Resistivity Log
Borehole
Logging
"_ __"
through a
In-Situ Tests, Applications, and Some Equipment Characteristics
Soil Tested
_
for example,
types
tests and equipment capabilities.
NCEL
,Sandia
aLimited to cored and cased boring holes.

2-22
,;-.,
vane embedded
soil strength and by the torque measuring limits
remolds the soil.
A more detailed discussion of in-situ
testing and equipment is given in Reference 2-6.
3,000
Seafloor
Penetration
800
1,600
16,000
20
20
10
650
200
1,600
6,600
800
40
20
300
1,000
100
20,000
....
4-5
210
330
1,000
250
65
180
--
about
''.
20 feet
in
soft
c1I
.. for
existing
rate,
devices,
The shear strength can be calculated from
can often
affect
vane
used as a rough measurement of strength vari-
measured torque values using:
""
-"2
and sensitivity
results but only to the extent that they can be
=v2
ability.
C
3 Cone
Penetration Tests (CPT)
(2-1)2.
2)2.5.3
2T
n d2[H + (d/3)]
2
'suv = vane shear strength [F/L ]
T
applied torque ELF]
where:
The
offshore
quasi-static
d = diameter of vane blade [L]

H =height of vane blade EL]
To''
To obtain
obtain
S"
for
accounting
continuous
with
in
depth
and
standardized,
base diameter of
Reference 2-9 con(Figure 2.5-2].

1.4 inches
tains additional information on this test. The
(2-2)
,v
information
The quasi-static cone is

a ;O-degree apex and a
has
S
The cone penetrometer obtains
in-situ
both cohesionless and cohesive soils.
from
Equation 2-1 such that:

su=
This cone is pushed
cone.*
soil properties.
of
effects
determined
strength
shear
vane
the
into
are then related to soil strength and other
Su, a
anisotropy and strain rate, should be applied to

the
for
penetrometer used
investigation
is
the soil at a constant rate while point resis"tance and side friction are measured. These
undrained sdata
shear strength,
factor,
correction
type of cone
geotechnical
where p is a correction factor from Figure 2.5-1

based on the soil plasticity Index (PI).
1.2I
a
S8 0.6
. _,..
"0
20
40
60
""Platicity index
80
(PI)
100
. s
120
"shearstrength (after
Ref 2-8).
2
3
45
6
Many factors can affect the measurement of

"shear strength. Values obtained in sensitive,
overconsoIidated,
or cemented clays may not be

of the clay during
insertion
of
the
vane.'
Erratic
results
Iod edl
Swain Pga
2
Frictionaleue(150CM
Adjusow rn
Wa-rpoofbumin"
7 Cable
8 Electriclcoanection
correct due to disturbance
"*'-'"
3.
2
1 Conical poim (10 CM )
. Figure Z5-1. Correction factor for vane determined
are
9 Rods
obtained in soils containing shells, gravel, or

wood fragments.
Effects of anisotropy,
strain
' This differentiates between a dynamic seafloor

penetration test, Section Z'4
5.5, and a convertional standard penetrometer test (SPT) on
land.' The latter utilizes successive hammer
blows to advance the cone.
Figure ZSZ Electric friction-conep enetrometer

tip (after Rlef 2-9).
2-23
"-.,.- d
.. .W
...-
--" " """; -'"' .'" ' -"- " - ."" -', ' . ."
, -" -" -'" ]
'
"
e ;. . ". '.- '.- ".-.'. ".-
.:"
r,-"
" %
-i
.' " " :',,
.' ." .'.
" .
.' ., ,
static cone bearing. qc in kg/cm
tFugro
po
cone can be equipped with one or more friction

sleeves of the same outer diameter as the cone
100
saturated
i1
\
t
interpretation
of
2-11].
floors because of differences in material types
correlations
vary
2.5 T
CPT data.
These
3.0
Figure ZS3. Correlation between cone tip resistance
and sand relative density (after Ref 2-10).
sea-
between
Char for the appeoximae evaluation of the peak angle of

internal friction after the relativedensity ha been evaiuated.
Modified from: Burmister. Donald M.. The Importance and
and stress history and can vary because of

equipment operational status. Existing correla-
Practical Ueo Relative Density in Soil Mechn a."

ASTM Proc.. Vol. 46. 1948
tions should be calibrated with known or deterseafloor material
-mined
changes
46
in a given
marine locale before use.
42
The cone penetration resistance in granular
" 4s'
soils is
influenced by the state of stress and

Figure 2.5-3 shows a
by the relative density.
correlation between cone bearing pressure (tip
OsA
.. ,orm-C
*".i".
qc. vertical effective stress, p ,

0
r, for normally consolidensity,
relative
and
dated medium to silty' fine uniform sands. This
0
relationship is used to determine r from P2
r
vO
resistance),
and qc.
and consolidation and
Soil stratigraphy is obtained from correlations

between the friction ratio (sleeve friction/cone
bearing) and cone tip resistance (Ref 2-10 and
011
>
permeability characteristics of the soils can be

through
'
; 1.5liii
mechanically or electrically. Quasi-static cone

penetrometers are used both from a wire-line
estimated
uncemented
1.0
system down a drilled borehole and from special

seafloor-resting platforms [Table 2.5-1]..
"
recent.
ii\\"
after cone penetration. End resistance and side

friction during a CPT sounding can be recorded
Strength parameters
So0
finesandsISM
the magnitude and dissipation characteristics of

the induced soil pore water pressure during or
,"
400
For normany consolidated
cone tip or along the friction sleeve to monitor
300
'
to measure the unit friction along the soilCone penetrometers can also
sleeve interface.
be equipped with electrical piezometers at the
200
04
32
3
30
0
4"
Io-o
1020,30
which are determined during testing.
40 5060
7080
90100
Relativedensity. in%
For overconsolidated sands, a correction is made
to q% by use of the dashed lines on.

The estimated relative density
Figure 2.5-3.
from these curves is used to estimate the maximum effective friction angle from Figure 2.5-4.
The
value
elasticity,
Es,
of the
constrained modulus
Note of caution
Inproblems wherethei en
"vtrain
Pas the
may
peak strength value
befom a general failure occurs. then

(paricularly
in the denier coesowonlesaI.
0
(partiularlyioftheidn
,use sl
of
soil,).
for sand to be used in settle-
ment computations may be estimated from:

Es
(1.5 to 2.0) q
strain
(2-3)
Figure Z54. Estimation of sand friction angle.,' from

material relative density (after Ref 2-10).
2-24
............
.....
.,."
............................
'-......
, -. -.--.
'".
.".'."....-
.-.a-.'
.',
* . *- *.
S4
The
higher
value
applies to silty sands,
velocity-dependent
and the lower value applies to finer grained but

noncohesive soils,
In clays the
undrained shear strength
in measured frequency
is
used
to monitor
the
penetrometer
signal
and
estimated from:
provides an analog of penetrometer velocity as
s'"
Doppler penetrometer
it
qc - Yt Z -um
u
t
total unit weight [F/
embeds
1.
Z = depth below seafloor (L]
"-ive
the
seafloor.
The
system has
expendable
the
following
A penetrometer with its constant

frequency sound source
um = hydrostatic pressure at mudline

2
]
[F/L rpreapplifier
N = bearing capacity factor = 15 for
c
nonfissured and not highly sensiclays with overconsolidation
ratio (OCR) < 2 and Plasticity
Index (Pa) > 10
into
components:
(2-4)
.where:
shift
of a constant frequency sound signal emitted by

the penetrometer.
A shipboard hydrophone is
hydrophone with a
A reivin
2.
'3. A receiver for processing the incoming
The Navy system is capable of operating in water
"-"*
S
2.5.4
Pressuremeter Tests
depths of 20,000 feet and has penetrated up to
a45
feet in some soils.

The pressuremeter test measures soil deformation as a function of expansion pressure when
2.5.6
a membrane is expanded out into the soil from

its position down a borehole.
Soil parameters
that can be estimated from the test are shear
strength, deformation modulus (modulus of elas-
Borehole logging techniques are used to

enhance knowledge of soil changes in lieu of
more expensive and time-consuming testing. They
ticity),
can be performed
and the horizontal earth pressure at

The pressuremeter may be placed either in
rest.
a
predrilled
hole
[Table 2.5-1].
or
pushed
into
the
Reference 2-6 presents
in the drill pipe after the

drilling and sampling operations.
In one type
soil
of test,
an electric probe is lowered in the

drill pipe while continuously measuring natural
gamma emissions of the soai'. The higher radio-
details
on the test and on data interpretation,

'C.-.o
active mineral
2.5.5
.-"
Dynamic Penetrometer
contents
a? :lays yield higher
gamma emissions than sands..
Thus,'a correlation
between' natural gamma logs and

(stratigraphy) can be established.
A dynamic penetrometer is a hydrodynamical-
".
Borehole Logginq Techniques
soil types.
The impor-
ly shaped cylinder that free falls through the

water column and penetrates into the seafloor,
tance of this type of testing will
Penetrometer
and core recovery (percent) is very low.
.slowed
by
"Undrained
velocity
the
is
during
soil
shear strengths
manner, similar
to
the
monitored
as
it
reverse
increased where coring problems are encountered
is
penetration.
are calculated
be greatly
Information on thermal and magnetic properties of the soil mass Around the borehole can be
in a
of the dynamic
gathered by other logging techniques.
penetration
prediction procedure of Chapter 8.

In this method, the change in velocity over a
"short penetration interval is used to calculate
2.6
the kinetic energy consumed, and then .to calcu"late the soil strength required to consume that
The level of seismicity can be determined
energy.
For the
change
-r.
Navy's Doppler
in velocity
from
'
on the basis of previous records of earthquake

activity both in magnitude and in frequency of
penetrometer,, the
is calculated
SEISMICITY SURVEY
the
occurrence
(see
Section 2.Z.1
2-25'
. .
..
for
sources).
TT
Akska
Hawai
!f
Figure 2.61. Seismic risk map of United States

coastal waters(afthr Ref 2-12).
Site-specific seismic considerations can

include acoustic seafloor and ,subbottom pro,
filing and dynamic
Sdue
"by
shear tests for instability
of ground
REFERENCES
2-1.
to liquefaction and for mud slides triggered

earthquake activity,
location of nearby,
faults,' and characteristics
'2.7
W.H.
Berger
and
and
the
stratigraphy
line,"
motion.
in. Pelagic
Oceans,
K.J.
Hsu
"Inthe absence of historical seismic data,

Figure 2.6-1 and the following relation may be
Blackwelfl,
Association
*used as a guide in determining the seismicity
Publication 1, 1974,
E.L.
Winterer.
fluctuating
Sediments
and
Oxford',
of
H.
on
"Plate
carbonate
Land
Jenkyns,
in
the
editors.
England,
International
Sedimentation,
Special
pp 11-48.
level for design:

2-2.
ZX 0
g = 0
0.05
0.10
0.20
0.25
0.40
where:
P.
LeTirant.
Seabed
reconnaissance
and
offshore soil mechanics for the Installation of

petroleum' structures.
Publishing Co., 1979.
John Chilton-Ward)
J
z a zone given In Figure 2.6-1

g = effective horizontal ground
acceleration in terms of gravitagtional acceleration [L/T 2 ]
2-26
Houston,
Tex.,
Gulf
(English translation by
proceedings of a session sponsored by the Geo

technical Engineering Div, American Society of
Civil Engineers National Convention, St. Louis,
Mo., 26-30 Oct 1981.
Exploring
2-3. R. McQuillin and B.A. Arders.
London, England,
the geology of shelf seas.
Graham and Trotman, Ltd., 1977.
2-4. H.J. Lee and J.E. Clausner. Seafloor soil
sampling and geotechnical parameter determination handbook, Civil Engineering Laboratory,
Port Hueneme, Calif.,
Technical Report R-873.
Aug 1979.
2-12. Planni~ng, designing, and constructing

fixed offshore platforms, American Petroleum
Washington, D.C., Jan
Institute, API RP 2A.
1982.
2-13.
2-5. G.B. Tirey. "Rocent trends 'in underwater

soil sampling methods," in Underwater Soil
Sampling, Testing, and Construction Control,
t-"o
American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM

"STP 501. Philadelphia, Pa., 1972, pp 42-54.
Noorany.
tion Control,
Materials,
1972,
2-6. J. Briaud. In situ tests to measure soil

strength and soil deformability for offshore
Texas MM Research Foundation.
engineering,
College Station, Tex., Oct 1980.
"Underwater
soil sampling
American Society for Testing and
ASTM STP 501.
Philadelphia,
Pa.,
pp 3-41.
2.8
SYMBOLS
Cc
Compression index
CCO Carbonate compensation depth, below which

carbonate materials will dissolve
Drained cohesion intercept (effective soil
cohesion) [F/L 2 ]
2-7. "Standard method for field vane shear test

in cohesive soil," in Part 19, 1982 Annual Book
of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing
Philadelphia,
and Materials, ASTM 0 2573-72.
Pa., 1982.
AOL
I.
and testing - A state-of-the-art review," in

Underwater Soil Sampling, Testing, and Construc-
2-8. L. Bjerrum. "Embankments on soft ground,"

in Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported
Structures, vol II, American Society of Civil
1972, pp 1-54.
Engineers.
"-:."
New York, N.Y.,
cv
d
Coefficient of consolidation' [lIT]

Diameter of vane blade (LI
Or
Relative density
Modulus of elasticity [F/L 2 ]

E
(for
EsaCnd)r
(Fdmodlu
lsiiy(o
o elasticity
modulus of
Constrained
Es
sand) [F/L']
2-9. ,..."Standard method for deep, quasi-static,

cone and friction-cone penetration tests of
soil," in Part 19, 1982 Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, American Society for Testing and
Materials,
ASTM
D-3441.
Philadelphia,
Effective horizontal ground acceleration
Pa.,
1982.
2-10. J.H. Schmertmann.'
Guidelines for cone
penetration test performance and, design, U.S.
Department of Transportation, FIHA-75-78-209.
Washington, D.C., 1978.
K.
"Soil
2-11. 8.J. Doug!as and R.S. Olson.
classification using electric cone penetrocr
eter," in Cone Penetration Testing and Experience, G.M. Norris and R.D. Holtz, editors;
S/
777.
[L/T 2 ]
Height of vane blade
Permeability [L/T]
NC
Bearing capacity factor
PI
Cohesive soil plasticity index
Pvo
pressure)r[F/L2f
2
]
,.F/L
Cone tip resistance
SP Normally consolidated, saturated, recent,
fine sands
rented
unc
2-2"7
St
s
Sensitivity
Undrained shee strength (F/Li]
2
Vane shear strength [F/L ]
Torque applied to vane [F)
um
2
Hydrostatic pressure at mudline [F/L ]
Correction factor for vane

shear strengths
Drained, or effective, friction
Depth below seafloor surface [LI
angle [deg]
API seismic risk zone.(see Figure 2.6-1)
3
Buoyant unit weight of soil [F/L )]
Total unit weight [F/

p
]t
Undrained friction angle for

sands rapidly sheared [deg]
Yb7
2--28
*'/
,.
................
...............
*#
'
.+
kI
Chapter 3
"*"LABORATORY
3.1
*'-."
3.1.1
ie
"
/
DETERMINATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES
INTRODUCTION
3.2
Scope
3.2.1
"
.
".
Classification by Origin
Table 2.1-2 of Chapter 2 identified engineering properties of soils required for analysis and design for several applications in the
deep ocean environment.
Chapter 2 outlined
elements of preliminary "desk-top* and field
surveys, including the acquisition of some
engineering properties from in-situ tests. This
Marine geologists classify seafloor soil

types by origin. This classification system was
introduced in Section 2.2.2, where characteristic soil strength profiles were discussed for
each major type, based on origin. A soil sample
in this system can often be clitssified with
visual examination of core material by experi-
chapter describes the laboratory phase of soils

classification and engineering properties determination.
enced personnel.
enced personnel or
fit into one of the
ties testing. This
3.1.2
lish grain size distribution (Section 3.3.7), to
Special Considerations
Classification by inexperiwhere soil does not cleanly

major types requires properis done with tests to estab-
determine carbonate and organic carbon content

(Section 3.3.8), and to identify and sort constituents by visual microscopic examination.
With soils found in the deep ocean, classification by origin is often a necessary element in
predicting the engineering behavior.
Most considerations and concepts developed

"in conventional onshore geotechnical engineering
apply also in the marine environment. Differences in handling, testing, and data evaluation
""
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
techniques arise because of the new soil materials encountered (primarily the biogenous
remains and the authigenic precipitates); the
very low effective stresses in surficial materials (and resulting very soft or loose physical
"state); and, to a lesser extent, the salt content of the pore fluid.
This chapter often
cites conventional soils testing references
(Ref 3-1 and 3-2), with most of the material
"devoted to presenting necessary deviations from
standard procedures.
3.2.2
Classification by Grain Size
The marine geologist also classifies sediments strictly by grain size, according to the
Wentworth scale (Table 3.2-1(a)] or according to
an American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTN) -scale that has slightly different grade
limits
and
subdivides
material
types
(Table 3.2-1(b)].
The portion of the sample
3-1
Table 3.2-1.
below gravel size from each of the size groups

(sand, silt, and clay), in percent of sample dry
weight, is often reported on a trilineal plot
(Figure 3.2-1].
This Trilineal Classification
System by itself normally does not provide an
adequate description
of a soil for engineering
Size Range Limits for Two Soil

Classification Systems
Diameter
Range
(em)
material
Type
(a) Wentworth Scale Grade Limits
purposes, but. it
Silt,
o0.062-0.0036
Clay
<0.0036
is a rapid, size classification
tool.
64-2.0
2.0-0.062
Gravel
Sand
3.2.3
Classification by Grain Size and Behavior
(b) ASIN Grade Limits [Ref 3-1]

Cobbles
A> G
Cobbles
GravelI
CThe
2i
>76.2
Unified Soil Classification System is

based on the soil's grain size distribution and
Coarse
Fine
Sand
Coarse
76.2-19.1
19.1-4.76
its index properties.

A sieve analysis
grain
size distribution (Section 3.3.7)
4.76-2.00
simple index tests (Section 3.3.6) are necessary
Medium
2.00-0.42
Fin*
Silt
Clay
Coilloids
0.42-0.074
0.074-0.005
<0.00O
<0.001
for
and
.7..
Data. from these tests are

for classification.
input for the Unified Soil Classification Chart
[Figure 3.2-2] in developing a soil's classification.
clay
Santdy
Silty
Cany
zo
s0
Pe Co.
Figure 32-1.
60
100
Silt Size
n
Trilineal soil classification plot normally used with Wentworth
grade limits.
3.2
%-
,-r-,.,
TI
at.
*~1~
%too&%$
~~~I Mul i
.=
0~
ft
=Iiio
O6.010
~pa-0
dw=is
s
60430"
00 jmmim sow'm oSwvw
v *&e o-s*
CI
Il
:;s
j;...v :
be00 ONA:
U. ow
40
0.
MASS
11*1
#w1Dei
if
3-3
iit
The System first divides soil

groups:
coarse-grained
(silts
fine-grained
organic materials.
(gravels
and
into three
and
and
clays),
The classifications
are
(no.
200
sieve).
than 0.074 -
Highly
Some index and engineer-
ing properties determined from a range of marine
indicate
soil types are shown in Table 3.3-2.
based
larger (coarse-grained)
smaller (fine-grained)
evaluate marine soils.
highly
that mo-e than 50% of the sample grains,

on dry weight,
data reduction procedures necessary to properly
sands),
or
3.3.2
Sample Preparation
in diameter
organic
soils
ASTN D 421 describes the standard method
are
identified by their black or dark gray color, and
for dry preparation of soil
by their hydrogen sulfide odor.
size and Atterberg limit tests.
The coarse-grained
samples for grain

This dry prep-
soils are further sub-
aration technique can be used for cohesionless
divided by their predominant grain size and by
terrigenous soils having no more than a trace of
the
index properties
Tie
fine-grained soils are subdivided entirely
based
on
of their
their
Figure 3.2-2].
index
fine
fraction.
properties
The Unified System is
biogenous
[see
rial,
described
for those soils
dry preparation should not be used.
drying rsmoves water from intra-particle
in detail in Reference 3-1.
of biogenous material,
resaturated
tests.
3.3
However,
material.
with measurable proportions of biogenous ,mate-
INDEX PROPERTY TESTS
Air
voids
and these. voids are not
later during
thi
Atterberg
limit
Further, the mechanical dis-aggregation
technique used (grinding with mortar and rubbercovered pestle) is far too abrasive for use with
3.3.1
General
Index
present
physical
fragile blogenous materials,
tests
condition
provide
(water
information
content)
on
the
and on
the
samples are normally

prepared in a wet state and are only dried when
the test is completed to obtain dry sample
Dis-aggregateon, it required, is best
weight.
accowilgshed using an ultrasonic bath, with the
and chemical
composition (grain size

limits, carbonate condistribution,
The index tests can be
sample.
tent) of a soil
run quickly and inexpensively, compared to most
, Empirical
tests for engineering properties.
Atterberg
relationships
have
been
developed
including coralline
sands.
Instead, mrine soil
amplised
between
3.3.3
in a
dlouaso
lution.
Water Content
S.
properseveral i.dex properties and engineering

ties [Table 2.1-2] of soils found on land.
Most
of these empirical relationships can be expected

to
apply 'to
terrigenous
marine
for the laboretItr determination of water content for terrestrial soils.

In marine soils,
soils' because
these soils are essentially similar soils moved

offshore or submerged due to sea level or lend
However, when dealing with
elevation changes.
salt comprises a smll portion of the fluid

For highly accurate
phase in the natural stat.
comp~utations. a correction should be applied to
pelagic soils, the previously established empir-
the equation for calcul~ating the water,,content.
ical correlations between index and engineering

properties may not be applicable.
Table 3.3-1
Thi
in
Ruference 3-1.
This
important
section
aspects
will
of
Is obtained
(
(W2
3-4
. .
oftent..
test
procedures as applied to marine soils and will

describe modifications to the standard test and
ist most
The water content of the soil sample,

corrected for dissolved salts in the pore fluid,
discusss,.
these
weveru
made.
lists pertinent information on
the most widely used index property tests and

the standard ASTM references that can be found
particularly
coretionfo
+
Wc I
"W2
(3-1)
3
Table 3.3-1.
Index Property Test
Re ference,
for
Standard
Test
Procedure
Sample preparation
ASTM D421
None
Disturbed or
or undisturbed.
As required for
for subsequent
tests.
Water content
ASTh 02216
None
Disturbed or
undisturbed with
unaltered natural
water content.
As large as
convenient.
None
Determine total dry

weight of a sample
of measured total
volume.
Undisturbed with
unaltered natural
volume.
As large as
convenient.
ASTM 0854
Volumetric flask
preferable; vacuum
preferable for
de-airing.
Disturbed or
undisturbed.
ASTh C127
None
Disturbed or
undisturbed.
25 to 50 gm for
fine-grained
soils; 150 gm
for coarsegrained soil.
500 gin.
Atterberg limitsc
Liquid limit
ASTM 0423
Disturbed or
.50 to 100 gin.
undisturbed, fraction
passing No. 40 sieve.
Plastic limit
ASTM 0424
Harvard liquid limit

device and grooving
tool acceptable;
open wire grooving
tool acceptable.
Ground glass plate
'preferable for
rolling,
Dry unit weight
Specific gravity:
-wMaterial smaller
than No. 4 sieve
size,
Material larger
than No. 4 sieve
size.
Requirements for Index Property Tests (after Ref 3-4)
Variations From
Standard Test
Procedure
Tyeo
aie
Size or Weight
fyeof Tstml
of SampiR
for Test frTs
Disturbed or
undisturbed, fraction
passing No. 40 sieve.
15 to 20 gin.
Gradation:
Sieve analysis
ASTM 0422
-.
HydomeerNo.
HyrmtrASTN 0,422
analysis
-for
Selection of sieves
to be utllited may
vary for samples of
different gradation,
Disturbed-or
undisturbed,
nonsegregated sample,
fraction larger than
200 sieve size..
Fraction itf sample
Disturbed or
hydrometer
undisturbed,
analysis may be that nonsegregated sample,
passing No. 200
fraction small~er than
sieve. Entire
.No.
10 sieve size.
600 gmnfor
finest grain
soil; to 4,000
gmnfor coarsegrained soils.
65 gmnfor'finegrainedrsoil;
115 gm'for sandy
soil.
sample of fine-
grained soil may be

used.
aDisturbed or undisturbed indicates that the source sample may be of either type.
Wecights of samples for tests on air-dried basis.
(Dry weight estimated before test and
determined after index test is run.)

cMaterial for these tests should not be dried before the test is run.
I3
'I
3.6
Table 3. 3-2.' Some Index and Engineering Properties of Ocean Sediments

'(Most Data Limited to Upper 2 Meters of Seafloor) (after
Ref 3-5).
Cor
Siko
Tp
Depth
w*%
jae
sooll,
Unai
*IF
Weight
1
pso" (kwL
Pie.
TER3NIG3E24OUS
Tenipwas CleyoryUl
ISO
44-59
13544
Towigposoaw
C UMN (1madl
379
73-308
13~-1111 434
*I
29-12
COW)%t SG
14.4-3154
safibi.siP
3.4-14hlb
3-9
L13-IU3
1.7-10thy
4-se5'
igh
3S
93
72-78
72-77
12.9-33J.3 7J-79
12.9-13.5 7442'
2.6?
2.76
2.54-2.59
2.93-2.53
2453-2.58
2.55-2.63
11-34
31-32
3.34.9
24.932.9
2.3-5.8
3.6-310
13
11
6
a
2.51-2.61 2.0.4.3
2.51-2A62 2.6-11 A.
2.11-2.60 2.3-8.1
2.40-2.621 .7-4.6
2.49-2.16136-3.4
2.55-2,62 2.1-3.t
4-30
4-32
5-7
46
2-32
4-33
2.4-2.63
2.57-2.65
2.57
2.62-2.6
2.33-2.36
2.67.3
2.6-3.2
JA
1.94.3
3A.11,11
2.73
A
34
36-75
2.652,69 4.348.9
52-79
MA.
NA.
PELAGIC-CAkcarcous coem
Cilcaugvsowow:
Calcaregous
uo
C~kWCAeOO&ooa
Cak1vosenimm
Calcuttao00or
calat~e-owsoa
00.670
1.643
4,4110
3,300
3.3)0
3.69
86-136
84330
16".236
136.213
2631
130.233
43J
36
NP
WeP
3183-5.4
33.8.33.4
12.4-12.9
12.6-13.1
Oe
33 Coooaccau~os
calcarw" oooe
32
3.940
327-210 4,.3110 112-245 -
33 Calc temao'
14
Calcareouji eon
13I C1akaecovetwo.,
I3& Cak~s..o.
4.560
4.700
4.300
4.70
128-434
343415
172-255
320-230
111.0-13.9 76-84
12.4.14.0 63482
33.4.33.6 538-1
313.6.13.147-79
12.4-13A. 64413
12.2.13.7 56-4161
37
Is
19
20
21
Ccicarew" .4,44
Colcoowrgeou
a
Cu~akwA twoua
Cakwoewseat...
ea,
Calcowitaus
4.450
4.100
4.300
4.520
4.850
53-233
102-196 372
300-164 2904124 -
132.3-14.3 704?
13.4-.4.1 7948
34.8
90
14.41-14.9 3046
13.111.32.1 414-4
22
2J
Noosao
&sownchalkava,
N.-~..s.
O&Y~
1 khSOAwM O
25oaea
Ck
3.950
4.723
4.431
.910
135
a32
321
60
983310
146
19,
66-10
45
3s
36to41-37
IJS-14.1 segliolk,
78
4-32
1.100
51-71
MAA .
239
351
385
339
398
'3
N.P.
N.P.
57-306
83-171
.j
1
1
I#3.0
1AR09
0 809
. 0 2
29
27
0.91
0.67
0.21
0.39
3.9
.
33 42.7 lips.4400)"
349
3
a
6
5
J.7
5.7
40 1(3. kPa..44"3)
35 41.4 kloo,42')
I-
16
33
2S
43.4 hPa, 340)"1

32
-
14.1-14.)
36-6
248-2.72 14-27
3-130
I U.6441.89
03.1741.21
0.4-1.2 dIMP
27
20
adA rich Llootitinu

(3&ycyDmaowamlOwe(0.2-4.
Ilw2.
Distant on*.(1700)
Rail
%a#ts.6 0016.0 f
4
Dist~ant~. 33ao
If
Wava,
Dotlomooht(I533
IS
Pe3..cday
13
12
P.4aW cay
Prugrgudy'
pdgo~a Iloa hm.41
JS
34
IM
3...au.lo
Absood odhls
blls).
loss *oa*dAbp
ODaaa.paaishoma.
.440
J)
3.313
3649
2.649
.) 2.609
2.414
2.4341
73
47
N.P.
N.P.
-
W4-12 73-113
4.61101 3443162 1133324

335-162 105-109
4.&00
III2IJ1
5.644
15.163
me
00#Ma
latid
%:,
13.14
12-13)
31.0.33.3
183.
23
mow3
1
2.18
Lill,
Negqligibl
35336
veryl
79-102
191-101
19
3.46
3344
NJ3
41
J
40
.-
ift6
43
2.24.4oksp
2-11
3.3
27
3-32
J1-3
to
37
2o
.72
11.A46-1.15
Ver loo,Io 269-2.73J 0.73-3.17
5"l
sworsg<101 loft Datei.
tnau3
towa
33-48
941:301354
i319
1"26-24 157-223
12082-235 1225-229
9.4
4
lab
26 cakoare~au
(deg)
0.220.40 0.1041.17
La
2.000
24
104-1144 IGOL-121 63419
It0
2.1
2
1,700-
*9
gltul
.- 7
calicarecs
Pronomiala
Twhocliac
(sdl-daygy WO
S
6
7
A
Yet.
1.4-35 la
Tcroigea-- ayM Silt
4
Pisviest
tOA
14*118 in.h
'NoVas
kPs
4.8
12.2
33.0
Oadictowww
.
-
O3. IsP,
031
2A69.79 4.J.A1
3.314
1.
J7
1.3
6
1.70
9.3-3.13.
2.36-3.30 32.2311.5
2.3
1A-2
3.5
4.3
13
at mmwdd~ortiset wm.N so0ift
35
2.64
1149
273
t ?
6.70
V112
1.706
6.7
2.616
6.35
63.4
61.29
where:
w = water
corrected for salt
contentcontent
[]
r
salinity of pore fluid defined as

the ratio between the weight of
dissolved salt and the weight of
seawater; for engineering, it is
sufficient to assume a value
of 0.035
W, = weight of container and moist
soil [F]
W2 = weight of container and oven-dried
soil [F]
Wc = weight of container [F]
The wet and dry unit weights are determined

from
BUchner funnel and washing the sample with

distilled water.
This sample is then washed
into
the pycnometer,
soil
run
as
grains
is
where:
(3-4)
Wa-W
Wd-
Gw = specific gravity of distilled water
undisturbed
soil
samples
obtained directly from core tube or liner sections of known length and diameter (ASTH 0 2937)
Wd
weight of oven-dry soil [F]
or from a carved sample of known volume,
Wa
weight of pycnometar filled with
at the temperature t of the

pycnometer and contents (see
such as
sample or a triaxial cylindrical
distilled water at teerature t
[F]
The wet, or bulk, unit weight of the
sample.
soil sample Is:
Wb = weight of pycnometer filled with

distilled water and Soil sample
at temperature t [F]
For most seafloor soils (except for sili-
V(3-2)
W = wet weight of the soil sample [F]

V = volume of the soil sample [L 3 ]
where:
ceous oozes and pelagic clays of high iron, oxide

content), the specific gravity can be estimated
as
The adjusted
"content,
Aft
dry density,
corrected
for salt
(W2
Wc)
r(W1 " W
2)
without
Table 3.3-2
3.3.6
"3.3.5
2.7
incurring
lists
some
significant
measured
Two methods are
for
[Ref 3-5].
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and
Plasticity Index
(3-3
Specific Gravity
error.
values
specific gravity of ocean sediments
is:
id
(.
test is
G Wc
relatively
"aconsolidation
and the
described in the ASTh standard.

The specific gravity of
calculated from:
Unit Weight
3.3.4
The soil sample is first leached of soluble
salts by pacing the smple on filter paper

in a
The liquid limit and plastic' limit are

water contents' of soils at borderlines used to
used for determining the
describe significant changes in physical proper-
specific gravity, or grain density, of materials

that make up soil samples.
For that portion of
ties.
a sample finer than the no., 4 sieve C4.76 mm,
test specifics were somewhat arbitrary, they are
the pycnometer method is
now a primary standard for Indexing behavior of

fine-grained soils.
used (ASTH 0 854-58).
For the coarser portion of a sample, a technique
the m
They are known as Atterberg limits, after

who designed the test.
Although the
better suited to the larger grain sizes is used

(ASTN C 127-80, Ref 3-6). Most marine soils are
finer than 4.76 -, and a discussion of the
wL,
pycnometer
between the liquid and plastic states of a soil.
provides
weighted
average
samples
containing
rial.s.
C-3.
method
0 854-58
will
suffice
guidance
specific
both
on
here.
computing
gravity
for
ASTN
the
those
coarse and fine mate-
3.3.6.1
is the
This is
Liquid Limit.
water 'content
determined
The liquid limit,

at the transition
from testing with a cupped
device into which remolded soil is

groove is
scoured
into the' soil,
placed.
separating it
into
two
halves.
The
liquid
limit
is
arbi-
two halves will flow together when the

finely calibrated, cup containing the soil halves
rial has passed through the sieve into the pan.

Most water from the pan sample is removed by
is
passing through filter paper in a funnel.
dropped
passing
a specific
a no. 40
diameter).
tion
distance 25 times at a
of
It
sieve (less
is
the
test sample
than 0.42 -
does
in
not change
the
and cause this boundary
to shift.
"with
Shifting of the boundary is likelymarked change of:

(1) the soil's pore
water
salt content and (2)
sample are worked until all the fine mate-
the sediment grain
characteristics.
fines retained on the filter paper

are then warmed by heat lamp or air blower until
the soil
able
removes most of 'the

sample,
all
it
limit
of
test.
sample
However,
preparation
pore water salt from the
may influence test results.
If
at
possible,
direct use of marine soils from

the stored sample tubes and physical separation
of coarse materials
is
preferred for Atterberg
Except
for
the
recommended
test on marine soils should be run on material
test
taken
66-72.
directly
from
the stored
sample
tubes.
is
conducted
It
changes
in
the liquid limit
as specified in ASTM D 423-
is most desirable to run the test at
Distilled or deionized water should be added to
water contents just above and below that which
the sample to raise the water content,
or the
would require 25 drops to cause sample closure.
allowed to lose moisture by air

blower or heat-lamp assistance
Two tests should be run at each of these levels,

and interpolation should, be used to determine
the
liquid
the
Although
test
this
limit
at
has
been
several
procedure
defined
water
will
by
contents,
result
in
some
the 25-drop water content.
The one-point method

described in the standard should not be used for
marine soils.
change in water-salt concentration, the effect

of this small change on the liquid-plastic
3.3.6.2
To minimize degradat on of sediment grains,
Plastic Limit.
The p!astic limit,
of a soil is the water content at the tran-
wp,
boundary is minimal.
sition between the plastic and semisolid states.
especially for the pelagic oozes,' the mechanical
The 'plastic limit is arbitrarily defined as the
must be
the soil
solthsout
soil can be
content1/8at which
lowest waterthrad
in the
diaete
Dry preparation should not be used

for specimens containing measurable percentages
rolled into threads 1/8 Inch In diaeter without

the threads breaking into pieces (ASTh 0 425-.
agitation
'-lle
agittio and
remolding
linch of
minimized.
"For those
organic
or
blogenous
of
(Section 3.3.2).
materials
79).
All comlenti
cohesive s il samples containing
test
possible
but is a nlaborlo
s process.
. b cn soked
dsttledwate
index
The sample
an
getly
soaked in distilled water and gently
pushed through a no. 40 sieve.

The empty sieve
is first placed in a pad; and then the soaked
sample
is poured
"water is
into
he 'sieve.
added to the pan,
level to 1 ca over the screen.

gently stirred with the
pertaining to the preparation
and handling of the sample for the liquid limit
significant amounts of c arser materials, separation of coarse and

ine material may be
can be
'
liquid
method
sample preparation and mixing,
until
this
tion change in the pore water, the liquid limit
-'running
the
because
limit determinations.
"sample should be
"drying with air
reaches a puttylike consistency suit-
for
To minimize the impact of salt concentra-
'
The
moist soil
very important that prepara-
sample characteristics
""
Remains of the origi-
the
to be
performed only on that portion of a soil sample
agitated up and down.
nal
specified rate (ASTN D 423-66-72).

"The liquid limit test is intended
is
trarily defined as the water content at which
also
3.3.6.3
(PI)
apply
is calculated
btentelqi
PI
limit
the plastic
to
test.
Plasticity Index. I The plasticity
as
lsi
the
difference
iis
~.
(3-5)
Distilled
bringing the water

The soil t s then
ingers while the sieve
Values of the liquid limit and pla;tic .limit for

samples of seefloor soil' types are reported in.
Table 3.3-2.
"3-8
S.............
.. .
... ... .
.. . .
. ....
. ... .
3.3.7
-.
"---.
Grain Size Analysis
The determination of the grain size distribution of marine soils is performed in the same
way as for terrestrial soils (ASTN D 422-63-72).
with some variation in sample preparation to
limit grain particle degradation.* The distribution of particle sizes larger than 0.075 1
(no. 200 sieve) is determined by sieving.. The
distribution of sizes finer than 0.075 mm is
determined by hydrometer test. Grain sizes up
The grain size curves from the sieve analysis for larger particles and from the hydrour
eter analysis for smaller particles may not
agree exactly where the test data overlap. Part
of this deviation arises because the theory on
which the hydrometer grain size analysis is
based (Stoke's theory) assumes a sphericalshaped particle. Clay particles and much of the
foram fragments are plate shaped and do not
conform to the theory.
Further, the whole
biogenous shells, especially the foraminifera,
to 2.0 - (no. 10 sieve) can be included in the

"hydrometer test sample to provide an overlapping
of grain size distribution curves froe the two
are hollow spheres.

Thus, their effective
specific gravity is lower than that measured
(Section 3.3.5).
The specific gravity error
methods. Since most marine soils, including the

"brown clays and oozes, are finer than 2.0 -,
separation of the sample on the no. 10 sieve is
not necessary; the hydrometer test can be performed directly on the sample.
Samples of marine soils for grain size
sieving 'are prepared by the wet method.
The
"soil is not oven-dried prior to the test because
this would remove the water from within the
biogenous structures and could alter the structure of clay-sized particles or could cause
particle bonding into larger particles. These
causes the percentage of the sediment classified

as fine-grained to be larger than it really. is.
effects are not reversed upon rewetting., When

"washingthese sediments on the sieves, the
agitation must be kept to a minimau to limit
tion furnace using procedures described in the

instruction manual. The weight of soluble salts
should be subtracted from the total uncorrected
particle degradation.
"Samples of marine soils for the hydrometer
test are prepared by rough mixing the sample
with water to promote separation of t4. very
-mall particles.
Some pelagic clay samples,
notably those having a high iron oxide content,
dry sample weight.
clay-sized material is not a significant problem, as the material is primarily minute plate*shaped particles that do not break down.
'Salt content of the water plays no part in
this test.
Carbonate and Organic Carbon Content
The organic and carbonate carbon contents

of the marine sample should be measured for
those soils with suspected high carbonate content (>30%) and for those giving off hydrogen
sulfide gas.
These tests have not yet been
standardized by ASTM.
Carbonate and organic
carbon content may be determined with an induc-
3.4
are very'difficult to separate into individual

particles. One technique places the sample in a
solution of dispersing agent, sodium hexametaThe soil and dispersant are then
phosphate.
mixed in a blender, followed by centrifuging of
the mixture to separate the solid particles,
This process is repeated perhaps three times to
reduce the natural flocculated structure to a
dispersed structure.
Particle degradation for
(.3
3.3.8
3.4.1
ENGINEERING PROPERTY TESTS

General,
Engineering property tests define proper-
ties of soil or soil samples at significant

states of stress.
The most important is the
undisturbed state--or as the soil exists in its
natural environment.
Most testing attempts to
establish properties for this condition.
The undrained shear strength, su,
of
samples of cohesive marine soils can be measured
either by . a vane shear test or by an
unconsolidated-undrained (UU)
triaxial test.
The unconfined compression test, a special case
undrained shear strengths, su, greater than

14 psi because vane failure conditions in these
higher strength soils may deviate from the
assumed cylindrical failure surface and cause
significant error in the measured strength.
This method includes use of either conventional
calibrated spring units or electrical torque
transducer units with a motorized miniature
vane.
of the UU triaxial test where confining pressure

is zero, is often run because of its simplicity,
Soil strength is measured differently in each of
the tests, but the value will be approximately
the same as undrained shear strength.
P.,
"Laboratory
vane shear testing is uniquely

suited to very soft sediments that cannot stand
under their own weight outside the core liner (a
prerequisite for sample preparation in most UU
testing).
In addition, the vane shear test is
test used to date for
the only aboratory
mining the sensitivity of soft marine cohesive
soils.
"-
Sbladed
to cause a cylindrical surface to be sheared by
-the
vane.
soil behavior under conditions different than

""those
example,e the
th s existing
ex si g (for
( obvmp
h different
i f rn
stress conditions created 'by placement of A
The effective
structure on or in the soil).
Foame
is
measured by
torque
spring or torque
attached
to the vane.
a calibrated
transducer
This force is
directly
then con-
verted to a shearing resistance primarily on the
stress parameters, c and *, define a generalized

soil failure criterion (Mohr-Coulomb failure
envelope) and are usually determined in a
consolidated-drained
(CD)
or
consolidatedundrained (CU) triaxial test with pore pressure
measurements.
The copression index, cand coefficient
of consolidation, cv, are determined from the
one-dimensional consolidation test. The perme-
cylindrical surface.
3. Apparatus. The vane should consist of
a rectangular four-bladed vane as Illustrated in
Figure 3.4-1. It is reconmended that the height
'of the vane be twice the diameter, although
vanes with other ratios can be used, including a
height equal to the diameter. Vane blade diameter ypically varies frm 0.5 to 1.0 Inch.
Variations from recomiended. values would be made
ability, k,can be calculated either from consolidated triaxial tests or from one-dimensional
consolidation tests.
A sumary of test requirements is given in'
Table 3.4-1.
Care should be taken that the
where sample size presents constraints or where

other special conditions exist.
The vanes
should be *thin* so as to displace no more than
15% of the soil when inserted into the soil.
Torque is applied to the vane by manual or
testing conditions represent stress states for

the soil being investigated,
motorized power. The shaft should be rotated at

a constant rate of 60 to 90 deog/min. Another,
3.4.2
slower standard rate (6 deg/min) is sometimes

used. Torque is measured through a spring or an'
electrical transducer rotating with the shaft.
Vane Shear Test
ASTN has not, as yet, standardized the

laboratory vane shear test. The following is
based on a draft of the standard developed for
Reference 3-1.
4.
Preparation of Samples.
Soil
samples
into which the vane is inserted should be large
enough to, minimize influence of container sides

"on the test results. The test should not be
centered closer to the edge of the container
than 1.5 times the vane diameter. Tests run in
the same containet
should beat least 2.0 times
the vane diameter apart fro each other.
"1. Sope. The laboratory vane shear test

is applicable to very soft to stiff saturated
fine-grained soils. The laboratory vane shear
"test should not be used in soils with very high
*
vane in an undisturbed tube sampl.e or
remolded sample and rotating it at a constant

rate to detemine the torsional force required
Other, generally more complex, testing is
The miniature
2
escrptlon
vane shear test consists of inserting a four-
done for soil parameters useful in predicting
the Test.
Dsrpinof
f2.
$6
3-10
o
-h.A A*
N
"-
Table 3.4-1.
Tetfor
Vane Shear
Unconfined
Compression (UC)
Requirements for Engineering Property Tests (after Ref 3-4)"

Reference
Suggested
Test
Procedure
Applicability and
Variations From
Suggested Test
Procedure
Size or Weight of,

Sample for Test
(Undisturbed or
Remolded)
Text,
Section 3.4.2
Applicable to very soft

to stiff saturated
fine-grained soils.
Test usually run on

exposed sample at end
of core liner tube.
Specimen height > 3 x
vane height. Specimen
diameter t 3 x vane
diameter.
ASTM D 2166
Pelagic clays from

shallower than 5 m;
biogenous oozes, and
nearshore terrigenous
silts normally too soft
to be properly prepared
for this test.
Minimum cross-sectional
area 10 cm2 . Length =
2 to 3 x diameter.
Information similar to
that from UC test; can
be used with softer and
more pervious sediments
than UC.
Rate of shear limited
to allow complete
drainage.
M4ore common and
enerally less timeonsuming than CO.
ressure lines leading
.o sample should be
"seawatet, filled.
Loading rod friction should
be minimized by using
air bushing or equivalent.
Same as UC test.
ASTM 0 2435
Must provide for very

low initial load
increments.
Sample
should be submerged in
seawater.
Sample diameter t
50 mm or Z 2 to 5 x
Sample
height.
height t 13 mm.
ASTM 0 3080
Limited to consolidated
shear tests on finegrained soils.
Sample diameter
50 mm, or Z 2 x height.
Sample height t 12.5 mm.
'
,.
Triaxial
Compression
SUnconsolidated
ASTM 0 2850
Undrained (UU)
ConsolidatedDrained ,(CD)
Ref 3-2
ConsolidatedUndrained (CU)
Ref 3-2
One-Dimensional
"Consolidation
Direct Shear
'
P. e1.1
"-.
Same as UC test.
Same as UC test.
A #
'4.
i~.
rotation should be cohtisiued (at a more rapid

rate) until
two complete revolutions have been
completed from the original position of the vane

when
it
was
inserted.
Determination
of
the
remolded strength should be started immediately

after completion of rapid rotation.
The proce-
dure,
outlined above, is followed with vane

removal and soil sampling done at its concluH
si on
-:-s
Calculations.
6.
graph
is
prepared
showing the applied torque versus the rotation

d
angle.
The vane shear strength,
puted
same
+
is
con-
from the maximum torque value using the

equation previously
introduced
for
corn-
puting
in-situ
vane
shear
strength
[Equation 2-1]. The rmolded' shear strength is
sam way.
computed the
Soil sensitivity, St. is derived from the
ratio of undisturbed to remolded shear strength
as follows:
1:1 Vne
(H-d)
2:1 Vane
(H-2d)
suv,
Figure 3.4-1. Miniature vane blade geometry.
Suv (undisturbed)
(3-6)
Suv (rewlde)-
t
5.
Test Procedure.
The vane shear unit
should be securely fastened to a table or frame
The shear strengths measured by the laboratory
to prevent movement during a test.
vane shear test are
The vane is
influenced by effects of
inserted and fixed at an elevation i,nthe sample
anisotropy
so that the vane top is embedded by an amount at

least equal to the vane height.
The sample
Section 2.5.2 for in-situ vane tests.

For
comparison with undrained shear strengths deter-
should
mined by triaxial testing,
be
held
Torque readings
quency that will
torque-rotation
5 degrees
of
180 degrees
firmly
to
preven% rotation,
rotation), or' until
the
The'
a maximum of
obtained.
described
in
inspected
inclusions
influenced test results.
3.4.3
Unconfined Compression Test
taken from the
to determine
is
Figure 2.5-1.
The vane
and a representa-
specimen is
test
soil
*and other
gravel,
as
data through use of Equation 2-2 and the correlation

with
plasticity,
index
from
of rotation is
of
rate,
allow good definition of the

curve, (approximately
every
tive sample of the

content.
strain
a correction factor
should be applied as done for the in-situ vane,
blade is removed and cleaned,

vicinity
and
at a fre-
should be recorded
that
the water
for
The unconfined compression test for marine

soils is run as defined in ASTM 0 2166-66-79.
sand,
may
have
The unconfined'compression test sh
Care should be taken
relatively
ties observed.
strength
to
Pelagic
clays
15 feet
would
if
'd only
be performed on samples that are co
to make notes of all sample or test peculidriThe remolded vane strength,
-'
desired, is
impervious,
stand
from
obtained following the test on the undisturbed

sample and prior to removal of the vane and soil
biogenous
sampling.
generally would not.
Following the initial test, the vane
and
under
have
their
subbottom
e,
are
sufficient
own
weight.
depths
beyond
usually meet these criteria;

oozes and nearshore silty sediments
,
3.12
..-. ....
...
.* .
. ..
- .
'...
','..
- ., ,.....
a..
'. .
...
....-
....
,.-
;.....
........
.....
'
. 5..
a..
..
.5-.. .... ..
3.4.4
Unconsolidated.
Undrained Triaxial
First, since marine sediments have seawater as a

pore
Compression Test
fluid,
sample
soils
test for marine

ASTh 0 2850-70.
Although the UU test determines
rather,
been published to show that freshwater changes

soil behavior,
compression
salt content accompanying water entry to marine
test,
it
can be
run on
somewhat
in theory, changes in pore water
3.4.5
Consolidated-Undrained and ConsolidatedDrained Triaxial Compression Tests
use
used
(CD)
(CU)
triaxial
and
tests
of cohesive marine 'soils.
of
stainless
steel
"points.
Secondly,
many
are
marine
at
critical
sediments
are
land.
Load
and pressure
transducers
used to
make measurements need to be sensitive or accu-
These
rate at abnormally
parameters can also be measured from the drained
within
"direct shear
pressure.
test (Section 3.4.6).
fittings
considerably softer than those usually found on
to measure the effective strength param-
eters, c and i,
significantly
behavior.
samples
Using saltwater in the pressure lines may,

however, introduce a corrosion problem requiring
consolidated-undrained
could
alter
softer and more pervious sediments.
consolidated-drained
with seawater
the same type of information as the unconfined
The
"*
be filled
than freshwater, if possible, when this water

Although data have not,
may enter the sarple.
undrained (UU) triaxial

is run as described in
The unconsolidated,
the pressure lines leading to the
should
The CU and
0.02 pound
low readings:
for
load and
accuracy to
0.02 psi
for
Devices such as air bushings must be
CD triaxial tests are not standardized by ASTH;
used to reduce friction between loading rod and
however,
cell considerably below what is
a comprehensive test description and
procedure
is
given
on
pp 122-137
of
normally accep-
table for soils testing.
Reference 3-2 and in Reference 3-7.
3.4.8 One-Dimensional Consolidation Test
Consolidated-Drained Direct Shear Test
3.4.6
Procedures for the one-dimensional consol I-
daton test have been standardized in ASTN
.The consolidated-draid dict shear et

Is
i
another
alternative
for
determining
effective strength parameters,

marine
cohesive
soils.
0 2435-80.
The direct shear
"test
thus allowing consoli-
mating the amount and time rate of settlement'
dation to take place fairly rapidly.

However,
the test is not suited to the development of
exact
.*
stress-strain
relationships
within
rate
of
displacement
The degree of overconsolldatlon is also

detred
from
sotest.oI
Is an
engineein
pet y of
f high'
hig value
ve
becas of
engineering
property
because
of
the high Impact that soil stress history has on
provides
for
bu
it
shear strength and other soil behavior. IA soil
plasticfsow
of softuoes,
b
ive
plastic
flow pof
soft cohesive
that has undergone consolidation under a higher
exess o orepresure,
disspaton
alsopermito
also
permits
effective
soils.
3.4.7
vertical
pressure
special considerations
triaxial
testing
of
must be made
marine
than
The ratio
of this past effective pressure to the present

effective pressure is called the overconsolidation ratio (OCR).
for
overburden
presently exists is overconsolidated.

Conslderat'ons for Triaxial Testing of
Marine Soils
Some
through triaxial
sediments.
OCR rey also be determined

testing.
which measures con-
solidation.
3.13
Ty a
the
test specimen because of the nonuniform distrislow
ui
under applied loads.
butlon of shearing stresses and displacements.

The
determined by
consolidation, cv; the coefficient of pereeability, k; and the coefficient of secondary

-.
These data are used for estiheao.nc
Cmtig
thee
d date
usedfresti
is well-suited to a consolidated-drained
because the drainage paths through the
condition
S~comprossion;
test specimen are short,
Engineering propertles
this test Include the Compression Index, Cc; the

Recompresslon Index, Cs; the coefficient of
is sta-
This .test
dardized as ASTM 0 3080-72-79.
the
Z and j,, for
. .
"*
The only major procedural difference in

adapting the standardized consolidation test to
s /P
marine soils
SU/Pvo
loads,
as
is
a need for applying very low,
8
(OCR) 08,
for NC soil
the
soil
sample
should be
This relationship and the data in Figure 3.5-1
In addi-
can be
used to make a rough estimate of the
submerged in
in-situ
strength
cap for the first few load increments.

seawater rather than freshwater,
of overconsolidated
nearshore
marine clays.
0.
3.5
3-:
(3-7)
low as
8 psf.
This is normally
achieved by placing small weights on the loading
tion,
for OC soil
-
PROPERTY CORRELATIONS
.
A.
0.6
General
3.5.1
This section presents correlations of soil

engineering
properties
with
index
U04
properties
more easily measured.
The correlations can be

used as a rough guide for estimating properties
when only limited site survey information is
available.
0.2
young
,.
0I
0
They should not beused for design
without evaluation of actual material properties

through laboratory or in-situ tests.
3.5.2
-.
PING
20
60
40,
8o
100
Figure 15 1. Relationship betwen su/Pvo and P1 for

normally consolidated late glacial clay
(from Ref 3-8).
Nearshore Sediments
The nearshore terrigenous

highly varialile In composition.
sediments are
A considerable
Figure 3.5-2
amount of information in geotechnical engineering literature can be applied to these sedi-
shows a correlation between

friction angle (angle of shearing resistance, ;)
and plasticity index for normally consolidated,
ments.
fine-grained
Figure 3.5-1 shows a correlation between
soils.
Although
this
was
not
Su/vo versus plasticity Index for normally

consolidated (NC) glacial clays on land and in
developed with data from marine soils, it can be

used to make a rough estimate of i for near-
coastal regions (Ref 3-8].
shore, terrigenous, fine-grained soils.
in this figure, su
is the undrained shear strength, and pro is the

effective vertical
overburden pressure.
In
Figure 3.5-1, "young" refers to normally con-
coefficient
solidated recent sediments, and "aged" refers to
not developed with data from marine soils,
clays that have developed higher strength due to

higher inter-particle bonding that has occurred
can be used to make a rough estimate of cv for

nearshore,
terrigenous,
fine-greined
soils.
The soil deposits In many river, delta front
Figure 3.5-3
The effects on strength are similar

to a mild overconsolidation.
vo
correlation between
consolidation,
limit for fine-grained soils.
with aging.
The s 6/
of
shows
Cv,
and
liquid
Although this was

it
regions of the continental shelf are undercon-
ratio for overconsolidated (OC)
%olldatnd (have
not fully consolidated
under
soils will be higher than the range shown In

Figure 3.5-1.
Compared with normally consoli-
their present effective overburden pressure) and

have strengths lower than would be 'expected for
dated
their existing stress condition. References 3-9,

3-10, and 3-11 contain information on the prop-,
(NC) soils, the ratio su/Pvo has been

observed to increase as a function of the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) as follows:
eoties
of
these
special
types
of
sediments.
.3-14
-I-
'9:,-T
".- '
..
'.t.
',..".
..-
;'."."
"..' .
-.5s,:.
%***
"" ,
.' ."
*,.:.;%*.*-,I'*.9
*s *. 9s:..-..-
-....-
...
Angle of shearing resistance vs
40lo9Gpe of faiure envelop forf
lsiiyblx(o
eintda;:C
dasi
rie
Stndr dvitono
Figurel3.&2 Relationship betwseen friction angle and

PI for normally consoU ated fine-grained
soils (after Ref 2-4).
3
Coefficient of consolidation
U4-
0.3
0.2
Unistuwbed sampleu
*41073
11-
eofreeompre
~above
-
0.1 r4
Iolea
this lower limit
007
10.05
00.03,
-
--
---
00.02
CyT
Am below thsuppw~m
200
iquid Limit
~~Figure 3.53. Correlation betwqen coefficient of consolidation and liquid
limnit (from Ref 3-4).
3~
properties
The
pile foundations,
and
their interaction with
for soils found in deep ocean regions to assist
due
mode
to
For this
reason,
suggested
for
of deposition
gives
sumary
Although
The pelagic brown

3.5.3.1 Pelagic Clays.
or red clays are very fine-grained silty clays
the deep
region
sea
depositional
calm
processes,
typically
a rela-
is
wit
more than
275,
&an cause
180.
60% particles
finer
indices range
from "40 to
shown in Figure 3.b-4, the plasticity
As
data for pelagic clays indicate they behave like
in profile
highly cthompressible clayey silts and silty clays
sediments relatively uniform

to
with
adjacent
sediments
at
the
(this is indicated' by data plotting close to the
same
"A"
uniform
relatively
corresponding
Liquid limits, range from 75 to
and plasticity
vast regions of the seafloor are covered
'(compared
depth)
with
than 0.002 mm.
other
envirnnment,
such as turbidity currents,
deposition in a considerably different manner.

Still,
.-
nodule deposits.
Deep Sea Sediments
tively
sections
shallow (upper 60 cm) exploration for manganese
information,
3.5.3
following
present additional data on deep sea sediments,

most of which were obtained in connection wi
available
of
The
elevations.
deeper
sands.
calcareous
samples by con-'
from shallow soil
solidating them to the state of stress found at
and
cannot be
typical properties
nearshore
Reference 3-12
extrapolated
deposition.
place after
that take
alterations
Most datd were
in planning for site surveys.
Cal-
variable in character
sands are highly
behavior
depths.
equivalent
have been found to be differ-
ent from those of terrigenous sediments.

careous
at
Chapter 2 presented estimated strength profiles
particularly
sediments,
properties
engineering
calcareous
nearshore
of
line and to
the
right of
the "9" line).
200.-'*.a...
.,
iMin
NN
:: ....
:a..
SO
.
0
CL
CO
ML
so
~
100
~MH
AOH
ISj
InofPi ic clay o( low to medium plasticity MH

OL
tooanric day of high plasticity
OH
Inorganic sJt.o low plasticity
....
200
300
Inorgnic soil of high Ic

Orpnic uit or aly of low plasticity
y
Orpnk day of hislh pl,"ic
Figure I 5-A. Range of P1 values for pelagic clay.
3.10
IS0
0.60
0.40
__
___-
Pelac (brown) Clays

0.30
___
0.2.
10
20
30
40 50
100
wsw content. M%
Nat%ral
200
300
400 500
Figure 3.5-5. Correlation between water content and Cc/(I +4e0 )

for pelagic day and calcareous ooze.
300% for siliceous ooze) and shear strengths in

the range of 0.5 to 1.5 psi.
Very limited test data indicate effective
cohesion values, c. in the range of 0 (not
measurable) to 4 psi and a friction angle, i. in
the range of 27 to 37 degrees.
The range of compression index, Cc. for
calcareous oozes is shown in Figure 3.5-5.
The water content for pelagic clays is

The
usually. higher than the liquid limit.
average undrained shear strength within the
upper 60 cm of the soil profile is in the range
The laboratory-measured
of 0.6 to 1.5 psi.
sensitivity Is in the range of 2 to la~. Mffctive cohesion values, Z, in the range of 0.14 to
0.45 psi and a friction Angle, 4,in the range
of 27 to 37 degrees are Indicated (from very
limited test data).
for
The -range of compression index. Cc
In
pelagic clays is shown in Figure 3.5-5.
consolidation tests., pelagic clays from shallow
embedment depths exhibit mild bverconsolidation
RFRNE
*Pavt 19, Soil and rock; building stones,"

in, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American
3-1.
behavior.
Society for Testing and M~aterials. Philadelphia.

Pa., 1982.
Pelagic oozes are.

3.5.3.2 Pelagic Oozes.
calcareous or siliceous remains of tiny marine
organisms or plants and have properties based on
the type of sediment and the.amount of clay in
the sediment. Only a limited amount of data Is
available on the engineering properties of
pelagic oozes In the, upper few feet of the soil
profile. These indicate -that ooiss have "ater
'contents inthe ran"eof 50to100% (or upto
Soil testing for engineers.

3-2. T.W. Lamlie.
Wiley and Sons, 1951.
John
N.Y.,r
New York,
3-3. Earth manual, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
Colo.,
Department of the Interior. .Denver,
198
3.17
5,.
.m
. .
't-
3-4.
Soil
mechanics,
neering Command,
Naval
Facilities
Engi-
NAVFAC D0-7.
Washington,
D.C.,
coefficient
1971.
3-5.
P.J.
deep
Valent.
ocean
influence
on
the
2-6.
"Part
14,
in
Annual
American
Society
Philadelphia,
3-7.
A.W.
ment
of
for
Pa.,
of
mineral
Standards,
and
Materials.
Testing
Ltd.,
1962.
3-8.
L.
in
properties
London,
the
triaxial
test,
Edward
Arnold
England,
"Embankuments
Bierrum.
Proceedings
of ASCE
Specialty Conference
vol 2,
Purdue University,
review,"
Journal
of
A.F.
K.
3-11.
measurement)
Coefficient of (grain size) uniformity
cv
Coefficient of consolidatior [Lz/T]
Coefficient of secondary compression
Diameter of vane blade [L]
D 10
Sample grain diameter,
on
Engineering,
K.R.
in
on
Sample grain diameter, below 'which

of material falls
060
Sample grain diameter,

of material
Mechanics
Demars, editor.
behavior;
soils.
American
Materials,
STP
GC
Clayey gravel
GM
Silty gravel
and
SMS,
GP
Poorly graded gravel
Sep
of
submarine
and
Geotechnical
GW
Well-graded gravel
H4
Height of vane [L]
Permeability [L/T]
LI
Liquidity index
1U4
Inorganic st
ML
Inorganic silt,
NC
Normally consolidated
OC
Overconsoldated
OCR
Overconsolidation ratio
OH
Organic clays, medium to high

plasticity
OL
Organic silts
PI
Plasticity index
prop-
Philadelphia,
f,.
.o
low plasticity
Pa.,
1982.
.,
Testing L and
3-18
.*.'-
of calcareous
for
Society
.'
grains
Specific gravity of distilled water
Foundation
1956.
Effective soil cohesion '(drained

cohesion intercopt) .(F/LZ]
Specific gravity of soil
Gw
SYMBOLS
Void ratio
..-
of Eighth Texas
and performance
777.
below which 601
1967.
Proceedings
Soil
301
falls
"Engineer-
geotechnique.
Marine
University of Texas,
erties,
below which, 101
030
Struc-
Mechanics
"Varieties
Terzaghi.
Conference
Richards.
slope failures,"
3-12.
,*.
o0 ,
vol 966, no.
University of Illinois Press,
-'e-
Consolidated-undrained triaxial
pp 1735-1762.
3-10.
3.7
Recompression index
CU
1972.
Soil
Foundations Division, ASCE,

1970,
Cs
low to medium
compression test (with pore pressure
ing properties of submarine soils, state-of-theart
Inorganic clay,
plasticity
on soft ground,"
I. Noorany and S.F. Gizienski.
3-9.
CL
of material falls
Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported

tures,
Inorganic clay,.high plasticity
The measure-
Bishop and O.J. Henkel.
soil
CH
aggre-
ASTM
1982.
second edition.
in
of the propellant
and
Book
Consolidated-drained triaxial
compression test
including
pp 19-20.
Concrete
gates,"
CD
Purdue University.
thesis,
Aug 1979,
Ind.,
behavior of two
sediments,
performance
Ph.D.
driven anchor,
Lafayette,
Engineering
calcareous
Compression index, also grain size
and clays,
low plasticity
Pt
Peat and other highly organic soils
Vertical effective stress, or soil

overburden pressure [F/L 2 ]
Weight of pycnometer
'distilled water [F] filled with
Wb
Weight of pycnometer filled with

distilled water and soil sample [F]
Weight of container in water content
Salt content
SC
Clayey sadc
S.G.
Specific gravity
Wd
Weight of oven-dry soil
SM
Silty sand
Weight of container and moist soil [F]
SP
Poorly graded sand
W2
Weight of container and oven-dried
S t.
S-
Se ns i t i v i t y
su
Undrained shear strength [F/L
, uv
Vane shear stre.,-th [F/1

Well-graded sand
determination [F]
Reference temperature
test weights
"
sY
un
e compretssion
o
U
n
Unconfined
test
Water content corrected for salt

content
t
UCC
F].
soil [F]
w
"SW
W
a
for pycnoueter
wL
wp
Liquid limit
Plastic limit
w
n
Natural water con.ent

Wet,
or bulk, unit weight [F/I
triaxial testing
Volume [Ls]
Wet weight of soil sample (F]
.,3i.
m-
Yd
condition for
Unconsolidatedundrained
UU
Dry unit weight [F/L ]

Effective,
[deg]
or drained,
.3-1
7:...~'.-'-c::'~*..
frictior
angle
Chapter 4
"SHALLOW
4.1
FOUNDATIONS
AND
DEADWEIGHT
INTRODUCTION
ANCHORS
Figure 4.1-2.
Some shallow foundations for use
in soft ocean soils are constructed with shear

4.1.1
General
keys or skirts that extend below the foundation
"base
Shallow foundations and deadweight anchors
are
typically
foundations
forces,
":'
"'
similar
primarily
structures.
resist
while deadweight
to improve the lateral load resistance of
the foundation.
Shallow
downward-bearing
anchors resist upward
forces.
The
design
methods
in
this
chapter
are
applicable to shallow foundations and deadweight

anchors located in the deep and shallow ocean
areas and follow an iterative or trial-and-error
,".::",.
-
of
reasonable
anchor
or' "convenient"
dimensions
or anchor
--
S.'
foundation
and an, analysis
predict performance.
V
The process starts with an estimation
process.
or
is made to
--
If the proposed foundation
::7-
--
excessively
overdesigned,
dhanged and the
the
dimensions
analysis process is
keys
Bo:B
is found to be inadequate or to be
are
repeated.
In some cases the selected shallow foundation or

deadwe-ight anchor for the given soil conditions
may be found impractical or too costly.
Other
"
"
foundation
types (such
The loading on'a shallow foundation will be
"considered.
the combination of externally applied man-made

forces,
structure weight,
and environmental
4.1.2
"m
loading from current and wave forces (and possibly from wind and earthquake forces).
Load-
Definitlons/Oescriptions'
4.1.2.1
Shallow Foundations.
Generally,
tigs applied to the structural system may result
shallow foundations have a depth of embement,
in
Of.
(tensile) loadingIs as well as downward (compres-
less than the minimu
the foundation,
"sions
large
S...,
as piles) must then be
8.
lateral dimension of
The horizontal base dimen-
of a shallow foundation are generally

relative to the foundation thickness.
overturning moments,
sive,)
loadings
component
Other types of shallow foundations are shown in
loads).
" :"
-'-"
4-1,
* .- s* *I.
--""""""::"-'";,-'',':.''-',:;':""7,":
to a shallow
create
uplift
foundation.
Vir-
tually a1 loadings (except gravitational loadings on a horizontal seafloor) develop some load
Figure 4.1.1 is a sketch of a simple foundation.
__
which
parallel
. *
'.;.
to
the
':-"::'2-"',:
seafloor
-...
*-..
:'.. "-".''-'"-".':';"
(lateral
* .
.:"
" '-.''..''
(c) Single siple footigd
(a) Multiple footing foundation

(d) Independen muldtiple spread
footing
(e) Triangular strip footing
-ID
(b) Mat foundation
Figure 4. 1-2 Types of shallow foundations.
The
type
of
loading
methodology
used in
loading
compressive,
is
"from the
will
design.
loaded
is
in
foundation,
is
tension,
embedded
the
surfaces,
and
the
extent as
foundation
resistance
resistance will' depend on

the
the
derived
bearing capacity of the soil.
foundation
of
determine
If
If
the
the
friction' on
"suction"
beneath
as
the
Deadweight Anchors.
seafloor.
anchors
Deadweight
the seafloor or be partially
often,
the
within
The
it.
anchor
lateral
to
is
resist
from a mooring
forces
of
uplift
provide little
and,
gr~ater
lateral
without
shear
capacity
lint con-
Anchors
inchors
of
may
with
load
However,
the
more
be
offset
anchors
Installation procedures.
Itmited
the
to
and
of heavy scrap
shear
keys
resistance
keys.
soil
shaped
into
uplift
range from rela-
simple concrete clumps or clumps

materials.
deadweight
dig
'
tively sophisticated anchors with shear keys to
of
specially
submerged
anchors are shown
The anchors
fabrication
to
net
these specially
additional
of deadweight
With the exception
few
the
Often,
nected to a buoyant object.
(designed
The uplift resistance

by
anchor.
Figure 4.1-3.
-,
sub-
resistance above that from its submerged weight.
rest on
purpose
the same
foundation
the
or even completely
primary
shallow
shaped anchors
placed on
can
the behavior
practically
the
A deadweight
anchor can be any heavy object that is
primarily
Ten types
4.1.2.2
deadweight
of
weight
in
buried
behavior of
is, provided
foundation.
the
anchor is dragged),
a deadweight anchor is
jected to an uplift load.
uplift
the submerged weight'

soil
the
of
provide
than do those
the
additional
sophisticated
deadweight
by
for
increased
costs
accomodating
for.
special
4-2
.
'.-.'......~.'.-.
"..-.
S~.
*'.%..-
. .-
o. o-
**...
*.....*.-.,.
.
.
.
.
., .-.
. ..
.. p.** ., . .'.
..
..
'.
non-solid
-top
(b) Squat clump
(a) Sinker
(c) Railroad rails or
* efficient uplift
&easy to handle
* low bulk, high

weight
low cost
e low overturning
* more area contacting soil
(cWOpen frame .tn

weighted corners
(d) Concrete slab with

shear keys
scrap iron
high lateral capacity

e reduced lowering line
dynamic tensions
" shallow burial
* high lateral capacity

* scour control
S.'
(f) Mushroom
(g) Wedge
(h) Slanted skirt
(i) iligh lateral capacity.

free fall
(j) Free fall

(DELCO)
, shallow burial
e shallow burial
* low overturning
* uni-directional
* deeper burial
* uni-direetional
* free fall installation

* high lateral capacity
e free fall installation

* efficient uplift
Figujre 4.1-a Types and significant characteristics of deadweight anchors.
AM
4.2
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
4.2.1
Knowledge of 'site characteristics

(water
depth;
topography,
stratigraphy,
environmental
loading
conditions,
potentially
hazardous features, among others).
Structure or moored platform characteristics

(and the nature and relative importance of
the structure or platform).
Soil characteristics (vertical and lateral

extent of the soil investigation to determine
existing
conditions
and
parameters
for
General
IInformation about potential sites and the

loading characteristics for the foundation or
anchor must be
letermined.'
This information is
used for the following purposes:
design).
a
-" '.'.-..
'To define 'the appropriate types of geotechnical information needed which will allow
fodi
o anchor
c
foundation
or
design.
~ps
Extent of knowledge and local experience on

the behavior of similar foundation or anchor
types.
a
To select sites attractive from geotechnical

considerations and to avoid sites containing
hazards.
To obtain the needed specific soil parameters

for design,
* d*.
Factors
weight
The foundation design process is interactive and

involves all these comsiderations in varying
influencing a foundation or dead-
anchor
design
include
the
Cost and level of risk of failure.
following
degrees.
The
influence
the
listed
choice
considerations
of
should,
safety- factors
for
design calculations whitch contain uncertainties.
Items:
4-3.
r-,'-;.'
"
".,""";2s.:;,..'.cN-''.'';,'L'2',"','','.".".".',,"e"."
"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. . .
.. . . "
-%..
.. ,,*.
,a~
,, . ".'%
, *.* '."....,..-".".:..%
., , ....'-,....,.,,,,,
|
4.2.2
pore pressures generated by the loading

do not have time to dissipate).
For
example:
mooring line loads created
from storm waves, or earthquake loading
of the structureeor of the soil mass
Site
Site characteristics important to shallow

foundations and deadweight anchor design include
water depth,
ronmental
topographic features, data on envi-
conditions,
stratigraphic
characteristics,
S.sediment
sdafloor
ardous
features.
Slf.
profiles,4.So
eforces
tifying
seafloor
slopes,
erosion,
consolidated
existing
sediment.
and potentially hazAt the earliest
slumps,
These
or
(i.e.,
oang
(e.
cyclic
cci
that occur over a sufficiently

long time period so that excess pore
pressures generated by the loading have
sufficient time to dissipate between
loads).
For example:
mooring line
load variations created by tide-related
changes in current.
attention should be given to idenfeatures that suggest steep
opportunity,
loading
yl
under-
indicate
that
4.2.5
excessive settlement, overstressing, or large

foundation movement can occur.
If a more suit-
Geotechnical
T
SThe
able site cannot be located, minimization of the
d
n off shallTow
a
od
n
n
foundationsan
design
deadweight. anchors requires that the following
effects of these problems
items affecting geotechnical
should be considered
during design.
4.2.3
"be considered:
Structure
"Characteristics of
Sl~~~ions
the structure or moored
platform drive the foundation or anchor design.

purpose,
stiffness,
configuration,
Weight,
life, and cost, as well as other informaThese dictate the loading

are relevant.
".design
tion,
aspects of design
conditions and otJer design considerations, and
Foundation instability:
bearing capacity
failure and other failures due to uplifting,
horizontal sliding, or combinaoverturning,
of these.
'"-
tn
f e
displacements--primarily
foundation
Slow
excessive consolidation settlement.
Installation problems associated with the use
of shear keys.
o Recovery problems associated with high resis-
relevant factors of safety which determine the
tance to breakout (Chapter 9).

type
and
size
of the
foundation
or
anchor.
0
4.2.4
Loading
The soil date required include soil. type,
index properties, density, strength under th,
conditions of the applied loads, and deformation
The following loading conditions should be
"determined:
l
Seafloor slope Instability and potential

massive soil movements (Chapter 11).
"1gIcharacteristics
Static long-term
1.
loading
(i.e.,
under static and cyclic. loading
Wie-
Table 4.2-1 lists the property

conditions.
values necessary to evaluate the loading condi-
tively constant loads applied, for a

long time period).
For example:
the
deadweight loading from the structure
and foundation.
2. Static short-term loading (i.e.,
rela-
tively constant loads applied for a

short tilme period).
For example:
a
downward force applied during installation to insure penetration of shear
keys, or. a load increase on the foundation
or
anchor
during
infrequent
replacement of a subsurface buoy which
had been applying a significant buoyant
force.
3.
tions discussed
in
and cohesion!e,
sols.
Section 4.2.4
for cohesive
At the site where the foundation or deadweight anchor is to be placed, the depth to
which soils data are required is approximately
the foundation width or diameter below the
foundation base.
The soil characteristics and
d
design parameters should be obtined through
on-site and laboratory testing. For unmanned or
other noncritical installations, and for small
Rapid cyclic loading (i.e., significant

repetitive forces occurring over a
relatively short period, so that excess
structures
4-.
and
ow loads,
where overdesign
is
Table 4.2-1.
;-
Soil Properties Required for Analysis and

Recommended Factors of Safety
Loading.
Condition
Recommended
Factor of
Safety
fog
~Stabil1ity"
"Long-Term
Static
Loading
Short-Term
Soil Properties tor

Cohesive Soil
Soil Properties fo6

Cohesionless Soil
2.0
Drained Parameters
c, :,Yb' Cc",
E, v, o
Drained Parameters
* Yb' E, v
1.5
Undrained Parameters
Sul Stl Ybl Cco
Drained Parameters
41 Yb' E, v
1.5
E, v, e.
Static
Loading
"Rapid
Su,
Cyclic c
Loading
Slow
"Cyclic
2.0
LoadingU
..
Eu'v'
S St Yb' Cc'
e o
E ,v, b:.
Yb' E,
Drained Parameters
Yb'E,v
aThese factors are recommended for the cases where properties data
are accurately known. These factors should be increased by
multiplying the listed value by 1.5 if geotechnical data are not
accurately known or if the installation is particularly critical
(see Section' 4.2.6).
bIn the absence of site-specific data on E and v, the following are
recommended:
For cohesive soil: E = 400 s v = 0.45.
For cohesionless soil: E = 2 O0[(3 - e )2/(l + e)]
0.35
where both E and Pv are in psi.
o
1-0
cUsually treated as equivalent to short-term static loading.
-.-.
"
not costly, soil information can often be estimated from available literature (Chapters 2 and
4k
3 include properties for typical soil types and
" "engineering
property correlations with more
easily obtained index properties).
However,
this lack of high quality soils data must be
"reflected by use of a high factor of safety.
SThe
and for a critical installation, the safety

factors should be increased by multiplying the
table value by 1.5.
4.3 DESIGN METHOOOLOGY ANO PROCEDURE,
4.3.1
General
during the
anchors to
soils data
accuracy.
of safety
leslgn procedure for a shallow foundation or deadweight anchor is an iterative process.

A foundation or anchor trial size is
"selected, and then checked for adequacy. When
-that size is found to be inadequate, it is
modified and checked again until a satisfactory
design results.
A flow char, for design of
shallow foundations and deadweight anchors is
given in Figure 4.3-1. The individual steps in
to be applied to the loading conditions discussed in Section 4.2.4 when soils properties
are accurately known (by field and laboratory
testing). Where these data are not well known,
the
design
process
are
summarized
in
Table 4.3-1.
The design must consider those
factors discussed in Section 4,.2 which are
applicable.
-
4.2.6
Factor of Safety
A safety factor must be applied

design of foundations and deadweight.
account for uncertainties in loading,
"accuracy, and analytical procedure
Table 4.2-1 lists recommended factors
p.
4-5
'
.0
STRUCTURAL
CHARACTERISTICS:
TYPE, CONFIGURATION, WEIGHT
ENVIRONMENTAL
INFORMATION;
WIND, WAVE,
CURRENT,
EARTHQUAKE
SITE CHARACTERIZATION:
WATER DEPTH, GEOPHYSICAL DATA,
BATHYMETRY,
GEOLOGIC
DESIGN LOADS
SITE INVESTIGATION
F hr F vGEOTECHNICAL AND
Fh, F ~
GEOPHYSICAL
SOIL PARAMETERS1
TABLE'4.2-1
FOUNDATION TYPE
SELECIONS
POTENTIAL,
COCENS
DESIGN
~~
SHALLOW~~
(SPRAD
FOR
MTHODOLOG
ORSPRED
FOTIN)
FONAINDADEGTACO
FOTIN
BTTOMSUPPRTEDFOR
OORE
STRUCTUR STUTR
BEigure
FATowA
c LA.3RAL
o h eino hlo
CAAIY
RSSANChors.TNE
ANALYIS
AALYSI'
AN4YSI
oundations Ndedwih
TAILT
Suary of Steps in the Design of Shallow Foundations and Deadweight Anchors
Table 4.3-1.
Cohesionless Soils
Cohesive Sails
Shallow Foundations
1.
Assume regular configuration.
1.
Same.
2.
Assumez.
2.
Same.
3.
Bearing capacity consideration (Equations 4-1 through

4-5).
Determine Wbf* B, and A.
3.
Same.
4.
4.
5.
Lateral load resistance consideration (Equation 4-13).

Determine Wbf, B, and A.
Preliminary sizing. Optimize Wbf, B, A, and H based
on results of steps 3 and 4.
S.
Consider lateral load resistance (Equation

4-12 or 4-17). Determine B, A, Wbf.
Sam.
6.
Check overturning (i.e., check B) (Equation 4-22).
6.
Sam.
okay, go to step 7.
6.
If
"through
If
no good, repeat steps 3
7.
Determine number of shear keys (Equations 4-23 and

4-25).
7.-
Determine number of shear keys (Equations

4-23 and 4-24).
8.
Determine thickness of shear keys.
8.
Same.
9.
Check penetration.
9.
Same.
1.
Assume configuration of deadweight anchor.
1.
Same.
2.
Assume zs.
2.
Same.
3.
Consider lateral load resistance (Equation 4-13).

Determine Wbf, A, and B.
3.
Consider lateral load resistance (Equation

4-12 or 4-17). Determine Wbf, A, and B.
4.
Check overturning resistance (Equation 4-22).

Check S.
If no good, go to step 3.
If okay, go to step S.
4.
Same.
5.
Determine preliminary sizing. Optimize Wbf, B, A,

and H based on steps 3 and 4.
oetemine number of shear keys (Equations 4-23
and 4-24).
5.
Same.
6.
Determine number of shear keys (Equations

4-23 and 4-25).
Determine thickness of shear keys.

Check penetration.
7.
Same.
8.
Same.
Deadweight Anchors
6.
*
7.
8.
aUse Wbst - 0 where it
4.3.2
".f
I'
appears in all equations.
Bearing Capacity
4.3.2.1
Static
"Cyclic Loading
The bearing capacity of a seafloor soil is
short-term
Short-Term
in COHESIVE SOILS.
loadings
and
all
Under static
cyclic
dependent upon the following factors:
failure
""
excess pore pressure can ,dissipate.

therefore,
undrained
failures and
Engineering properties of the soil profile

Type
size
Type and
andee
of of foundation
fundat iproperties
cohesive 'soils
on
used
In
the
will
design
and
Loading
loadings,
occur
are
before
These are,
the soils
undrainvd
a Depth of embedment
a
Load direction
of the ground surface
properties [Table 4.2-1].,

The maximum downwrd
"oInclination
"The maximum
"size foundation
that a
bearing capacity
is
calculated
for the trial
as explained
in
Sections 4.3.2.1 through 4.3.2.6.
This capacity
"is
compared
forces
to
normal to the
priate safety
ryphtion
the
sum
of
all
"under
-
acting
seafloor surface, with an approfactor applied to these norml
where:
foundation
undrained
A'
vertical
load,
Q,
on cohesive soil can support

conditions
is
calculated
by:
K"4
u
Kc
A' -
effective base area of found&depending on the load
f Kq
.forces.
eccentricity (L ] (Section
,4.3.2:.5s)
4.7
%,.
,.
Ky
of the
= cohesive
undrained soil-averaged
shear strengthover
Su
correction
factor dependent
on
load inclination,
founda-
distance B below the foundation

2
base [F/L 1
N = bearing capacity factor; for
c
undrained failure N = 5.14
buoyant unit weightCof soil - 3
above the foundation base [F/L ]
of= depth of embedment of foundation
tion shape, embedment depth,

inclination of foundation
base, and inclination of
ground (Section 4.3.2.6).
For foundations subject to
essentially vertical loading,
K can be assumed to be 0.6
[L]
f~r a square or circular
KcKq = correction factors that account

for load inclination, foundation
shape, embedment depth, inclination of foundation base, and
inclination of ground (Section
4.3.2.6).
For a nearly level
surface, a nearly square or
round shape, and a vertical
foundation
1000
the
simple
case
applied concentrically
resting
vertical
on
the
seafloor
20
25
horizontal,
100- 30
33.29
40
Z 40
5.38
10.87
20.71
30.14 22.40
46.11 48.02 1
46.11 46.02
134.87 133.87
13317 271.74
271.74
1349.87
.50
Static
Long-Term
The
static
long-term
_/
Nq ..
,,
lo'--..
Loading
_"
319.05 266.87 762.84
(4-2)
SOILS.
in
loading
//
64.19 75.31 108.40 1I
60-45
450
Equation 4-1 reduces to:
4.3.2.2
13329
where A is the foundation base area.
COHESIVE
18.40
35
surface,
(6.17) A s
QU
/N
1.22
2.65
2.47 8.33
3.94 10.97
6.39 14.81
10
s
load
where both the foundation base and seafloor are
""
u t Value
N
N
N
..s,. _._
N-1
1.00
5.14
0.00
1.56
6.40 0.45
0
5
20
on a square or circular
foudaio
foundation
of a
,__
600
400
load, K = 1.2 and K = 1.0.
For
....
800
'
_!___[
condition on cohesive soils exists after the

excess
This
pore
water
pressures
is a drained
failure
have
dissipated.
condition,
and the
soils properties used in the design are dralned
ljI
properties [Table 4.2-1].
The
downward vertical
maximum
load of
shallow foundation or deadweight anchor for the

drained case is calculated by:
Qu
A'[c Nc Kc *Yb Of Nq Kq
(1/2) 1b B N K3
(n Y
where:
30
40
(delFees)
50
Figure 4.32. Bearingcapacity factors N
N and N
q
as, function of the soil friction
angle
(from Ref 4-1).
(43)
4.3.2.3 Static Short- and Long-Term Loading in COHESIONLESS SOILS.

Bearing capacity
c - effective soil cohesion as

determined from a Mohr:2
Coulomb envelope [F/L )
B a minimum foundation base
dimension (LI
U bearing capacity factors
.that art functions of *,
obtainqd from F'igure 4.3-2
-a effective soil friction
angl'a (deg]
NNq
10
20
soilhied'n a
failure
on
cohesionless
soils
occurs
4.
under
Cohsionless soils have a

drained conditions.
sufficiently high permeability to allow water
drainage and rapid dissipion of axes pore
s
pressures.
Ther.fore,
both the short- and
long-term designs uie drained sol0 propertiis
[Table 4.2-1].
4-8
%
.-
-/....
.-........
-.. . -.
.;..-'... .. ,.,-.
.,.
.. .. ,
'.
..
". ,. . o ..
,S
*..
, -. .- * ,.".
. ','.
. 'S'
*.,.*.*..,
o
.. . . " .
,,.
...
./
.~S,
.' , -,"
,"
.*
- . . %. ~....
,
.~.
. . ."
.**S***
. .
.
,..% ...
%,..
5-.....
. ;
*
5 .
The
maximum downward
shallow
foundation
or
vertical
deadweight
load
of a
anchor
on
cohesionlets soils is calculated by:
at the center of the reduced area.
As shown in
Figure 4.3-3,
base
for
or both, axis.
A'[Yb Of Nq Kq + (1/2) Yb B' N K ]
Qu
where
base dimension (Section 4.3.2.5)

For
the
simple
case
(4-4)
B'
[L].
B N6
4-1, 4-3, and 4-4, each represent a subgroup of

factors, which account for the following:
time
Inclination of resultant load

vector from vertical
Shape of foundation
Depth of embedment
Inclination of foundation base
Inclination of ground surface
-ay occur without
for dissipation
of generated
The bearing capacity of
a foundation
or dsadweight anchor under such

rapid cyclic loading conditions may be lower or
the
Oesignation
Item
Cyclic loading applied to a founda-
excess pore pressu-vs.
The correction
static bearing capacity.
The
bearing capacity under rapid cyclic loading can
be determined by using Equation 4-4'with bearing
i
s
d
b
g
factors Kc,
Kq,
and K are
evaluated from:
Kc
capacity factors Nq and N selected using an

undrained friction angle #u determined from
special cyclic undrained laboratory tests (which
Sc dc bc gc
sC
q
a
q
s
must be run if this condition is anticipated).
q
d
q
b
(4-8)
For slower cyclic loading, where the excess
Seafloor foundatione and deadweght anchors
pressures
have time to dissipate, the
dare
drained analysis of Section 4.3.2.3 is used witt.
are
and,
pore
and N
(4-7)
The correc4.3.2.6 Correction Factors.

tion factors Kc, Kq, and K, used in Equatiohs
(45)
tion on a coheslonless soil
higher than
= B' L'
AP
Rapid Cyclic Loading in COHESION-
4.3.2.4
LESS SOILS.
(46)
2 e
The effective area is:
.here A4is the foundation base area.
sufficient
Equation 4-4 reduces to:
0.3A
The altered effective dimensions
of a vertical load
where both the foundation base and seafloor are
area,
L'
applied concentrically on a square or circular

foundation resting at the seafloor surface,
horizontal,
rectangular
of the footing are:
is the effective foundation minimum
B'
can occur with respect to either,
eccentricity
obtainedr using the drained friction
angle $ (Table 4.2-1].
often
ofte
subjected
subjecte
to a large
toalreltrlla
lateral
load
component arising from wave and current loadings

occasionally,
from wind loading on a sur-
face float wletch is connected by a mooring'line.

This large lateral load component, combined with
4.3.2.5
loading is
Effective Base Dimensions.
If the
applied eccentrically or includes a
moment, a reduced foundation base-to-soil
con-
the gravity
load component of a structure or
deadweight,
forms a resultant load of substan-.
tial Inclination to the vertical.
This inclina-
tact area is used to determine bearing capacity.
tion of the resultant load causes a change In
Eccentric vertical
the form of the bearing capacity failure sur-
are
handled
loading and applied momcnts
by defining
an
eccentricity,
e,
face,
is the distance from the center of the

foundation to the center of the reduced -area.
failure to take place at a

Subgroup correction factors, which
permitting
which
lower load.
The equivalent or. resultant vertical load acts
acc=,,nt for Inclination of the resultant load,

are:"
4-9,
""-".:'- .o ..
.-'
" '-..
."-.-
..
6'
- ..-.
'"".
.. '":.
.."-" .
-.
.-.
-.- '. " ".o
..
.'.
.-.
"
.-
QQ
Equivalent loaduing
2 (axis)
-.
reduced area
(axis)
C 0I
-1
L'- L-e
-32a,
2e
RS2.CU
KIU
B'
Q1W
A'-ifi B''
ircaglr-I-a
odn.e/
[cuila
ara-muWst
Reduced
A2
O'3.2
reducednle
Reduce
area-
maesis.4~i
.
9R
cirulircularn
hecare:= wangle
between thelin o0ctono
andtheloengaxsfh
F
Wo
Areardction factori
(a Ecetial lode area
Figure4.3-3.
~
~
whre
Fh
horzota
l co+nn
veica
Fhdohwer
isroccetriallne fr add
m
~ retialloddonains
Aereutofatrfo
~
~
L
(aN Ref-4-))
of' deig
omonst
(4-9)
lCOS
~ ~ {a'a.~A
~
o
bearing
4Thene capacit-atos
of all
Fityfiure
4.3- aredived
s
forthe#=t0odimensiona-
4-14-0)
4
/)
L s~ N.f
'
failure case or for an infinitely long strip

foundation.
Corrections to the calculated
two-dimensional bearing capacity prediction for
the more likely rectangular and circular bearing
areas are calculated frow:
sc
= 1 + (B'/L')(Nq/N
I)
= 1- 0.4(B'/L')
1 + (B'/L') tan
For circular
foundations
Shear keys are often incorporated in the

foundation base design [Figure 4.1-1]. This is
done to increase lateral load capacity by
forcing the failure surface, the surface on
which the foundation wIll slide, deeper into the
seafloor where stronger soils can resist higher
lateral loads.
Three possible failure modes that can occur
for shallow foundations fitted with shear keys
are shown in Figure 4.3-4. Generally, the shear
keys should be designed sufficiently close
togetiher to force the sliding failure to occur
at the base rf the keys as shown in Figure
4.3-4(a). Procedures for evaluating this base
sliding resistance are described in the following two sections.
Methods for analyzing the
passive wedge failure mod* shown in Figure
4.3-4(c) are addressed in the shear key design
section (Section 4.3.6).
The dtep passive
failure mode shown in Figure 4.3-A(b) does not
often occur and is not detailed in this chapter.
Maximum lateral 1cad capacity is calculated
as
explained
in Sections 4.3.3. 1
through
4.3.3.3. This capacity is then compared to the
sum of all forces driving the foundation in the
downslope direction with an appropriate safety
factor applied to these driving forces.
(4-11)
loaded
without
eccentricity, the shape correction factors are

calculated by setting B'/L' = 1.
Normally, conditions are such that the
remaining factors can be &ssumed equal to 1.0.
The correction factor for depth of embedment, subgroup d, is very sensitive to soil
disturbance along the sides of the embedded
base. Because installation procedures normally
disturb the soil zone, it is wise to discount
entirely the beneficial effect of 'overburden
shear. strength. This is done by setting dc
ddq = d
d a 1.
The correction factors for
inclination of the foundation base, subgroup b,
and for the inclination of the seafloor, subgroup g, can be set equal to 1 where the foundationtIs placed nearly level on a near-horizontal
seafloor. Because nonsloping sites are usually
J;
sought for foundations, and the foundation is

usually placed in a near-horizontal orientation.
then:
bc bq by .1, and gcgqzg* s 1.
For those instances where foundations will(
dingbwefalur
be installed deeply in the seafloor, at a severe

inclination or on a slope, relationships for thqcorrection factor subgroups d, b, and g can be
found in References 4-1 and 4-2.
4.3.3
"
Planes
%
(b) Dee panv frailure
P.a
pi2Ms":
Lateral Load Capacity
The lateral load that acts on the foundaor deadweight anchor can result from:
downslope gravity force caused by a sloping
seafloor, current drag on a foundation and
striscture, nonvertical mooring line loading, or
stormr-wave and earthquake loadings.
tion
failure
Potentia fallur"
Planes
Paswewedgefailure
Figure 4.3-4. Possible failure modes when sliding
resistance is excveded (after Ref 4-3).
4%11,
"
Table 4.3-2.
Coefficient of Friction Betwe i Cohesionless Soils

and Some Marine Construction r terlals
Friction Coefficient,
p.
for--
SoSoiloil
Soil
Internal
Smooth
Rough
Smooth
Friction
Steel
Steel
Concrete
Concrete
PVC
Rough
Smooth
Coefficient
4.3.3.1
Quartz
Sand
0.67
0.27
0.60
0.60
0.69
0.33
Corallne
Sand
0.67
0.20
0.63
0.63
0.66
0.20
Oolitic
Sand
0.79
0.23
0.56
0.58
0.74
0.26
Form
Sand-Si It
0.64
0.40
0.66
0.67
Static
Short-Term Loading and All
Wbst s buoyant weight of bottomsupported structure [F]

F = design environmental loading
mooring line loading in the
mv
Static st-rt-
Cyclic Loading in COHESIVE SOILS.
term loading and all cyclic lateral loading of

foundations
on
cohesive
soils
are
treated
as
vertical direction (upward

positive) [F]
undrained failure problems (Table 4.2-1].
the
seafloor),
cohesive
soil
Qul'
under
for
undrained
foundation
on
conditions
is
[F/L ]
Qul
Suz A + 2
where:
soils,
failure,
(4-12)
A
'Rp
seafloor slop, angle (deg]
passive soil resistance

on
leading edge of bass [F]
The coefficiet of friction depends on soil

type and on base material type and material
roughness.
Table 4.3-2 )fsts coefficient
of
a average undrait d shear strength

between the seafloor and depth
2
Of (F/L ]
4.3.3.2
ingl in
sua's
Z undrained shear strength of the

soil at depth z
(F/LZ]
Static
COHESIONLESS
literal
load
and the
ShortSOI.S.
failure
maxima
For
cohesionless
is a drained
lateral
there
is no other guidance,
Wbst * 1b A Of-
-Fh sin 0] + Rp
where:
the value of p can
be estimated as follows:
soil
load capacity
p * tan (
-'
S dog)
fora
concrete base
0itht
0l((Wbf
"-
friction values for typical construction materials and marine cohesionless soils.
Where
and Long-Tvrm Load-
in sliding is calculated by:
Qul
is
s asstied positive)IF]
buoyant unit weight of soil
1
calculated by:
uz
and
design environmental loading and

mooring line loading in the
horizontal direction (downslope
Fh
lateral load capacity (parallel
The miaxmtu
to
0.40
--
Fve) cos
rough steel or
"'-"'-"
shear keys
p * tan # for a biae with shear keys

where:
(4-13)
pa * coefficient of friction between

foundation base and soil or
between soil and soil when shear
keys cause thii type of sliding
failure
# a soil f iction angle (4

undrai
case and .
drai
, for the
f~r the
case)
Where sheor kiyo are present or the foundstion
Wbf a buoyant weight of foundation (F]
is
embedded deeply,
wedge
of
sull
In
passive failure de elops In front of the leading
4-12
foundation
and
For
wedge
contribute
can
lateral
edge
sliding.
some
provides
resistance
foundations
around
resistance.
this
1(0
However,
of
to
soil is based on a drained soil failure analysis
passive
similar to that described for cohesionless soil
the
because
total
with
sediment
an
contribution
additional
effective
soil
cohesion.
comprising this passive wedge may be removed by
loed capacity (parallel
current
downslope
(set
scour
or
by
Chapter 10).
wedge
sive
to
animal
the
burrowing
contribution
sliding
activity
of the pas-
resistance
is
direction)
cohesive soil
often
in
c,
from
maximu
The
the
lateral
to the seafloor in the
for
foundation
a drained condition
is
on
calcu-
lated by:
omitted.
In
design of
the
cohesionless soils,
a shallow foundation on
the weight of the foundation
is
to raise the maximum lateral
often increased
load
capacity.
maintain
To
stability
a factor of safety is applied to Qul to
account
for
The minimum
soil
In
data
or
The factor of safety in this
failure mechanism.
case is
FvW) cos
Wbf
(Wbf+ Wbst *' Ib A Of -
W_
ilhe minimm foundation
for
-bf
case
derived
is
buoyant
from
weight
for
+Fv
Equations 4-13
and
where the soils are heavily overconsolidated and

very
"?bf
stiff.
Vei
y
Wbst
Yb A Of
and.
therefore,
aspects
..
Where
the
skirts
. .
(4-1S)
...
but no shear keys are
sliding will more
Therefore.
weight
of
sOil
should
not
be
the
in
skirts/keys
For the
0 where the seafloor is
43.4
toundation
case of
level,
Equation 4-15
illustrates
in
the
analyzing
a
horizontal
slope,
deawight
foundation,
Figure 4.3-i
on
* Fve
load
anchor
Wbst
1b A 0f
subjectd
if
to
lateral and uplift loading, may rotate
(FsFseafloor
1
and
capacity
lateral
about a point near the leading edge of its base.
(yb A O)
special
shallow
(4-16)
components
the'forces
considered
capwcity of a shallow
tion or deadweight
control
Overturning Resistance
excessive
bec omes.
Wbf
will
short-term
lower
likely occur along
last term in the buoyant
the
used.
of
the
yield
design.
ti'e foundation base and not at the depth of the

skirt.
Normally,
will
case
Fs tan 0
Note:
the design in a very few cases
tion may control
tan ft) Fh
p t(undrained)
(F(s
(4-18)
A Of
yh
Wbst
This long-term drained cohesive soil condi-
4-14 (assuming Rp a 0) as:
.]
buoyant weight
C
Cosp
(Fs + iJ tan p) Fh
_ hp
J_ -%F_ tan
bs
(-14)
foundation
Fh cosp
Fve) sin
bfF
used.
(4-17)
this case is determined by:
Qu
this
sinp]
determined by:
FF=
Fs
-Fh
ybAOf
against
sliding,
uncertainties
cA -((Wbf*Wbst
founda-
anchor to resist overturning

burface.
the
parallel
forces
Where
are
and noral1
there
resolved
is
into
to the seafloor
surface.
Table 4.2-1
lists
recommended
values
to
Stability against
be used in Equations 4-15

4.3.3.3
"COHESIVE
Static
SOILS.
ccapacity' of' a
The
Long-Term
long-term
Loading
overturning
is achieved
in
the design* by insuring the resisting or
stabilizing moment,
S.
,
is
greater than t!.e
Overturning
nmmet, N .
To insure full'contact
in
0
lateral
load
between
foundation or anchor on cohesive
the
base and
the supporting
sail,
the
foundation or anchor should be designed so, that
4-13
Fve= loading in the vertical direction

jve
Fh - loading in the horizontal direction
SWb
,
"HI
Wbsg . effective or buoyant weight of

supported structure
Fdte
Wbf * effective or buoyant weight of

foundation or anchor
.the
-X
Wb - buoyant weight of soil in the
-- ---------. -67-A
zj
psassive soil resistance
Sak
HI
vertical distance from the foundation base to the elevation where

F h is applied
- depth of shear key
sod ras
Rs
B - width of foundation
I 4-
3 -
R$ - resuhant of soil reaction
Of -embedment depth of the shear
keys
Figure -C3
the
resultant
normal
soil
Forces considered in the overturning analysis.
reaction,
Rs.
within the middle one-third of the base.

R
crosses
assumed
of
foundation
"maimum stabilizing
It
moment
rotation.
is
is
The
then calculated
priate
values
highest
values possible
not
as:
result
maximum
and
(Wbf
(W
Wbst
Fv,) 8
b6
when tits
iuportant,
in
for
the
value of N
Wbst
art
possible
be used.
to
separate
within the sheer keys

from
the
does
therefore.
and,
assumed
F (N.
mment
is
calculated
Zs
where:
calculation
for
lower values
at
ye and
the
sizing,
time
se
Fh occur,
the
the
for Wbf
the
they should
minimum width
Wbf
-F(4-22)w
%f
overturning
The
It(-' z)
contribute
stabilizing moment.
The
involved.
of the foundation can be calculated from:
during overturning
to the
base
not
is
used
to use appro-
for Wbf and Wbst iwould
, If
maximum values for F
(4-19)
forces
an accurate
For prelimOary
The soil
equation is
to check a foundation's stability,
line then becomes the
the shear key
point
acts
Where
as:
- WbSt
FV
F
To minimize the potential for overturning.
(4-20')
the
(4-
lateral
N' x vertical divitance from Fh to the

base of the shear key
of the shear key tip below
5S 2 depth
the foundation base
distance
N * zs
(the, moment
loed component)
as possible.
This
is
that
H be
of
the
most easily done by mini-
mizing the foundation base height.

mended
arm
should be kept as small
limited
It
to 0.258
is
recoi-
where
pos-
sible.
To maintain stability.
6 b
N1 s
Fh(H'
N .5
Therefore:
0
+ z,)
4K
4.3.5
(4-21),
Shear Key Oesian
The depth of shear keys or perimeter

skirts
is usually
limited
by
the
net
downward, force
4-14
. . - .-. - -, .. :%-. -'-. .-. % -. '. -. . . . .
;'
. '.
".
,;.
. *% % ,,-.
..
.%
available
to drive
resistance
skirt
the
calculation
penetration
keys.
is
assured
that
under
full
only
the
skirts
are
submerged weiqht of the foundation,

When
Sby
shear
keys
In cohesionltss soils, a z5
A penetration
should show
or perimeter
0.058
appropriate for internal shear keys.
is
The shear
key around the edge of the foundation, called a

perimeter
skirt,
preventing
serves the added function
undermining
of
the
foundation
of
by
used, venting holes are required in the base to
scour and animal
allow the water and soft surficial soils trapped

them to escape.
Sharpening the leading edge
the perimeter skirt will normally be deeper and

a depth of 0.18 is recommended.
of
also aid penetration.
keys will
foundation placement
The actual
should be smooth and con-
burrowing.
For this reason,
The number of shear keys required in each

direction on cohesionless
soils is
again com-
tinuous to minimize disturbance to the seafloor
puted using
soil and the possible resulting creation of an
mended shear key spacing is 2 zs.)
"eccentric foundation
res istance developed per shear key is computed
orientation,
Equation 4-23.
(A minimum recoiThe passive
for coheslonless soils as:
"-
4.3.5.1 Depth and Spacing of Shear Keys.

"Incohesive soils, the shear key depth. zs, and
spacing of shear keys are dictated by the need
ap
to force a failure to occur along the base of

the shear keys as shown in Figure 4.3-4(a). The
recommended
pressure and is computed by:
"cohesive
..
cannot
depth
of
shear
is 0.1B (Ref 4-4].

be
reduced
achieved
if
full
keys
on
This depth
penetration
(Section 4.3.5.2).
4.3.5.2
lateral load capacity include making the
sheer
number of
direction
shear keys,
is
couted by
n,
required
comparing
in
the
design load parallel to the seafloor to the

passive resistance developed per key.
n is
computad.by:
[F*sFhp *(wb
(F
%Sdst) 01 .]
"where
F
is the resultant of applied loadi in
dmsloh
diretion (F].
(The minimum
recomended shear key spacing is I)

For cohesive
soils,
Penetration
of
Shear
Keys.
The
rqired to ensure full penetration of
keys and perimeter skirts. Q

can be
calculated using methods presented in Chapter 8.
In making the analysis, the highest expected
values of soil strength should be used to be on
the consorvative side.
(In using Equations 8-4
and 8-5. undisturbed soil shear strengths should

be used for cohesive soils; the adhesion factor
should be set equal to 1.0, and the friction
angle between -shear key and sand should be set
(4-23)
p
the
)
(4-26)
force
each
(-2)
(4-2S)
an22 (45 dog * (s/2)]

tan
Other
base larger and making it heavier--if necessary

to insure shear key peetration.
Is the coefficient of passive lateral earth
steps to reach a satisfactory design for ad&-
SThe
""
to
be
quate
S
.
soils
have
may
maximum
Kp T
equel to the soil friction angle.)

After Q has been ,calculated.
to the
bstt
bf
driving penetration, to check if it
than the driving forces.
the resistance devel-
If
it
it
is
cos-
e
is smaller
is larger, then
the skirts must be made smialler or fewer, or the

foundation wight will need to be increased.
oped by one shear key is calculated as:

(If
+.2 su
z8
Increased, a check
must be made to See that this increase does not
a
ap
the foundation weight, is
(4-24)
'""4.3.6
create a bearting capacity problem.)

Foundation Settlement
where
sus is the average undrained soil shear

strength between the foundation base and the tip
"of the
key measured in F/L1.
,o..% o4
The
seafloor
bearing
capacity 'of
the
surficial
sill, is assumed, to be sufficient
to
,.
support the foundation.
"is
not
sufficient,
If the bearing capacity
then
the
foundation
will gradually settle as the excess pore pres-
will'
sure which developed in response to the founda-
imediately penetrate into the seafloor until

its weight and the supported structure weight
are balanced by the soil resistance. A method
"for predicting this penetration is described in
Chapter 8.
Foundation settlements
due to elastic
deforations and soil consolidation may still
pose a significant problem, even in the absence
of a bearing capacity failure, because such
settlements are rarely uniform. The occurrence
of differential settlement is greatly aggravated
tion loading dissipates and the soil consolidates.

In cohesionless soils there is no significant amount of consolidation settlement as
pore pressure dissipates almost immediately. In
evaluating this time-dependent consolidation
settlement for cohesive soils, the soil to a
depth of 28 below the foundation base should be
considered. This is the depth where the effective stress change after consolidation is about
10% of the change imediately below the foundation base (for a square foundation) [Figure
"4
by eccentric
loading.
The resulting. tilting
could impair structure function.
Settlement of a deadweight anchor is, in
not normally considered a problem
contrast,S~ap
because the holding capacity is unaffected, or
a--
is sometimes Increased by such ebtedment.

In
some cases, however, even excessive emb@dent of
a deadweight anchor is not desirable because it
limits the ability to inspect and maintain the
mooring line connections to the anchor.
Settlement is the suation of Initial and
consolidation settlements,
in the following sections.
6i
where:
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0
"
which are discussed
"
can'
0 be ca lc u la ted , a ft
L-Fonato bo lenth:
8 Foundation b"e wip

a - Depth below foundatmio bow
2.0
-e
/,
-.fo--iomu -e-"lel
a -i
-istein mwfticaleffectiv
Rer
ef 4-5, by:
m
3.
0 V)
0.2
L-B
4.3.6.1 Initial
Settlement.
Initial
settlement is the instantaneous response of the
soil to the foundation loading and results
primarily fro, elastic soil deform'ations.
The
initial vertical settlement of a shallow' foundatio n , 6
F'v
(4-27)
- *(if
nitely
iong fouulndom
of widhbS)
Poisson's ratio of the soil (assume

v = 0.35 for. cohesionless soils and
0.45 for cohesive soils)
'A radius of the base; for square
footing, assume R 81/2 (L)
F= total downward vertical load on,
v the foundation base [F]
E z Young's modulus of the soil. a
"property which must be2 determined
by soils testing [F/ ]
G = (E/2)('1 * v) and is called the
elastic shear modulus of tne
(F/La]
S.soil
4.3.6.2
Consolidation
'Settlement.
Figure 4.3-t Soil stress increae' beneath a

rctangular foundation.
O
n
ihv
Only consolidation of the cohesive soil
layers within the depth 21 needs to be calculited. The calculations are made by breaking
the distance 23 into several layers. The total
consolidation settlement is the sun of the
settlement of the individual layers and is
In
cohesive soils, after installation, a foundation
obtained from:
4-16.
..
....
. .V..
,.
' .,.-----
/-/-
6
where:
ps]
[f(4-28)
Wbv = submerged.weight of installation
[b]
area of the
AV = vertical projected
package [ft 2]
= consolidation settlement
C EL]
n = number of layers within distance
"28
.i
As the installation approaches the seafloor, the maximum lowering velocity must be
soil layer
reduced by at least, a factor of four to prevent

too hard an impact with the bottom.
A hard
Cci = compression index of cohesive

soil layer i
pita added effective vertical stress at
"midpoint of cohesive soil layer i
[F/L2]
initial effective overburden
Po
1
stress at midpoint of soil layer i
".[F/L;]
initial
eo0
inia
impact may result in bearing failure, excessive

It is
tilting, or an instability failure.
usually desirable to approach the seafloor as
slowly as possible and not to lift the foundaoff the seafloor once the initial touchdown
void ratio of layer i
vtion
has occurred.
---
computation of consolidation
An accurate
A
The
settlement requires considerable knowledge of

-r instance, high quality
soils properties.
on samples and att leastt one laboratory
a aadequate
consoil
' q~e---
Prediction
detersolidation test per 'syer are required to

Other soil
thes, computations.
Otherp$er
mine Cci for mineeaou
properties must be measured for each layer to
perform settlement analysis. A rough estimate
for these settlements can be made by using same
Values for Cc may be
estimated properties.
4.4.1
forces
and
presented
in Chapter

Cohesive Soil
mildly sloping and is composed of a cohesive

Use
soil which has well-established properties
a factor of safety of .1.5 and minimize the base
horizontal size.
Data: The foundation is to be placed where
the seafloor slopes at S degrees and must resitt
loads from a mooring line that may reach
20,000 pounds in uplift and in any horizontal
direction. Figure 4.4-1 shows a sketch for this
problem and for Problem 2. The seofloor is a
cohesive silty clay material whose properties
have been determined by laboratory tests on
The data' for undrained shear
cored smples.
(4-29)
Wbv
Wb
417
. .. . . . , ,
breakout
Determine the
4.4,1.1 Problem Statement':
dimensions of a concrete and steel square foundation, essentially a deadweight anchor, with
shear keys to resist given environmental loadthgs at a deep ocean site. The seafloor is
rate is:
shallow foundation also
EXAMPLE PROSLEMS
4.4
The installation of shallow foundations

should be planned so that Lhe foundation can be
properly set down at the ntended site without
excessive disturbance to he supporting soil.
The maximum lowering ate of the installation line should not exceed the free-fall
velocity of the package to void unstable lowering and possible entangl ng of the lowering
A rough estimate or maximum lowering
line.
*c
of
are
force
breakout
Installation and Rem val
"
minimize the
used toinptos
of techniques
discussion forc
presnte
are
determined empirically as outlined in Chapter 3.

,The initial void ratio. e&, can be determined
"from soil specific gravity and water content
values by the relationship e0 a G w. The value
of ap1 can be estimated from Figure 4.3-6. poi
soil buoyant unit
is determined by using
It is suggested that a maximum soil
'weight.
layer thickness of 0.258 be used,
4.3.7
of
recovery
requires careful consideration to insure that

lifting force for breakout is avail-
Vable.
"::::::-"
= 4max"mm lowering velocity
" where:
o
("
l 10og
,=i
Elngl\ci
..
,-
...
..
.:
....
..
..
..
.,
...
. ..
.-.
...
..
strength (Su),
buoyant unit weight (
tivity
and
(S ),
cohesion (c)
the
drained
sensi-
parameters
solution
of
method
and friction angle (;) are shown to
are
shown
presented
below.
They
the
design of
for
follow
the
a square
foundation to resist the loads under the exist-
the right of Figure 4.4-i.
ing conditions.
The forces acting on the foun-
dation are shown in Figure 4.4-2.
S4.4.1.2
Problem Solution:
"and computational
procedures
The analytical
for the problem's
--
.-
C.-0o
b. =M peope iesfor problan 1.
., *Atdh
-.
pde
2Ft
St.,..0
Sr
20
':""-.7
oz.-1 o)
. 14po
+e(4 p
,kh
Figure 4.4-I. Foundation sketch for example prob&iers I wid 2.
Problem 4.4.1
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
1.
,
2.
COMPUTATIONS
Select a trial foundation size. The

toundation has a side length 8 and shear
keys of depth z = 0.18 (Section 4.3.5.1).
"(Assume a founditlon will be placed in an
orientation parallel to the downslope
direction and embed to a depth z .)
Say 8 = 12 ft.
Calculate Ft,. the load component parallel

to the sloP(downslopj) from existing
forces and the safety factor.
Fhp 2 (20,000 lb) cos S.

F
= 18,180 lb
F a F cosp- F sin I
hp
h
ye
Fs
1.5 (given)
Therefore,
zs = (0.1)(12 ft) = 1.2 ft

0f = zs = 1.2 ft
FsFhp = (1.5)(18,180
3.
Calculate the foundation's resistance to

sliding in the short-term (undrained)
condition (Equativn 4-12).

Qul
A
Sz%12
2 s&ua Of a
(20,000 lb) sin So
lb) = 27,300 lb
Suz 3 Su 0 depth z
= 144 psf ',(4.5 psf)(1.2 ft)= 198 psf
A =(12 ft)(12 ft) = 144 ftz
sua
s,
depth zs/2
= 144 psf + (45 psf)(0.6 ft) z 171 psf
Qul
4-18
(198 psf)(144 ft')

+ 20(71 psf)(.4 2 ft)(12 ft)
33,400 lb
Problem 4.4-1
COMPUTATIONS
4.
Calculate minimum foundation weight, W

required to resist sliding (Equation 408).
2.
(F
Wbf
-. ".. -.
"
cA
tan p) F
F tan
+ Fve
i = tan
(Section 4.3.3.2) = tan (30)
0.58
p=50
= 0
Wbt
=20,000 lbb
,00l
Fve
F-ye
b A
Wbst =0
Wbf =[1.5
+ (0.58) tar (50)] (20,000 lb)0.58 - 1.5 tan (50)
"Wbf
+ 20,000 lb - 0
- (28 pcf)(144 ft2)(1.2 ft)
= 84,300 lb
(1.5)[18,180 lb + (84,300 lb + 0
+ 6,200 lb) sin (50)] = 39,100 lb
Is the 12-ft square foundation's resistance

to (undrained) sliding less than the forces
5.
"
driving it downslope?
Is QuL Z F5[Fh
(W
Q+ < 39,100 lb
The foundation size is not adequate to resist
downslope sliding. The foundation trial size
will have to be increased.
bsNO;
See Figures 4.3-4 and 4.4-1b, which show

the forces being considered.
6.
S0.18
"
'
Try a 13-ft square foundation, which has

dee shear keys. Calculate the new
foundation's resistance to (undrained)
sliding.
5
uz A
A++ 22sua
"Su.
s e f B
B =.13 ft
zs = 0.1(13 ft) = 1.3 ft
f =zs
=
Is the 13-ft square foundation's resistance

to sliding less than the forces driving it
"f
.3 ft (complete
embedent-
"A""(13 ft)
Suz = s ul
depth zs.
= 169 ft;
downslope?A
= 144 psf + (45 pcf)(1.3 ft) = 202 psf
ua
Z/2
= 144 psf + (45 p.f)(0.65 ft) = 173 psf
2
""Q= (202
psf)(169 ft
+ 2(173 psf)(1.3 ft)(13 ft)

..
(The driving ,forces are the same.)

YES; Qu>
"7.
Qui
Calculate the foundation's resistance to

sliding in the long-tarm (drained) condition (Equation 4-17).
":"-h
Wbs1bt
A Of
39,100 lb
a 0 + (0.58)([84.300
-
u(CwbfA
""4
= 40,000 lb
lb + 0
2 pcf(169 ft)(1.3 ft)
26
(20.000 lb) cos (50)]
(20,000 lb) sin (50))
A,
) Cosp
239,400 lb
aui
sinp]
YES; Qu, > 39,100 lb

Is the resistance to sliding in the drained
case sufficient?
4 1
S'.
.
.,,.
,._
,__
. _....
..
. ;
-;,.*. . .;. *
.** ,.
..
oj .-
d...
,C
. :',
.
a:
Problem 4.4-1
COMPUTATION-
Calculate the height of a concrete trial

foundation necessary to yield an underwater
weight of Wbf
From the relationship:
S.
150 pef - 64 pcf = 86 pcf
Vb (concrete)
H
Wbf
-5.8
84,300 lb
ft
-
W-Yb--'AHj
(86 pcf)(169 ft)
Wbf = Yb A H-.
Check that H does not exceed the recommended limit (Section 4.3.4).
0.25B = (0.25)(13 ft) = 3.25 ft

NO; H > 0.258
Is H < 0.258?
Therefore, the foundation base appears too high,
and this may promote overturning instability.
9.
Recalculate foundation height, limiting it

to the recommended maximum, based on use of
a material more dense than concrete.
Required buoyant density is then:
Let H = 0.25B = 0.25(13 ft)

H = 3.25 ft
64300
8=
lb
b(169 ft/)(3.25 ft)
Therefore,
YbWbf/AH
13
to remain within the recommended
foundation height limitation, the foundation

must have 'an average y = 153 pcf. This can be
accomplished by using 9 concrete foundation with
scrap steel to raise the weight (109 ft3 of
490-pcf steel and 440 ft 3 of 150-pcf concrete).
Calculate the trial foundation's resultant
10.
Wb = y zs A = (28 pcf)(1.3 ft)(169 ftz)
normal force F (acting perpendicular to

the slope).
Nate: This includes Wb- the
weight of the soil within the shear keys.
Fn
Wbf Cos 1 + Wb Cos p - Fve cosp
11.
Calculate..
= 6,200 lb
Fn = (84,300 lb + 6,200 lb - 20,000 lb)
, cos (50)- (20,000 lb) sin (5)
= 68,500 lb
Fh sin
the (downslope) eccentricity
sin ('
INo = (6,200 lb)(1.3 ft/)
(Figure 4.3?1) by summing moments around

the center of the shear key base (see
Figure 4.4-1c).
IN - wb(zs/2) sin A * Wbt(Zs
5*)
+ 84,300 lb(1.3 ft + 3.0 ft/2) sin W)

- 20,000 lb(1.3 ft. 3.0 ft) sIn(5)
+ 20,000 lb(1.3 ft + 3.0 ft) cos (5-)
H/2) sin ft
IN
Fe(zs + N) sin p + Fh(zs + N) cos p
= 99,100 ft-lb
2 = 99,100 ft-lb/68,S00 lb = 1.45 ft
Because IN, is equal to (e)Fn

a
12.
,.
n-
Calculate the bearing area reduced 'for the
*1 a 0
eccentricity (Equations 4-6 and 4-7):
L" - 13.0 ft
2' x 13.0 ft
- 13.0 ft
2(1.45 ft)
a 10.10 ft
'A' a (10.10 ft)(13.0 ft) z 131.3 ft 2
BI- 2L?
A'
"0
A'z=B' L'
13.
Calculate s for the bearing capacity

equation (aVerage s,, over the depth S below
the shear keys).
s
$ 1 0s
SU
U
Ju
z 202 ps.
8)
45 pcf(1.3 ft
144 psf
v792g
13 ft)
sf
.s'-
(202 psi * 792 psi)/2
497 pat
+20-
o.'
-.. '-..-...
,.
'
..
O'
Wo
........................
.-.....'.-.
'
-o
.. '
'
-.........
'
'
'..."....,
"
'
"
'
.....
'....'...
.
'
..
"
....-.... '."
.
_.
."
"
...-,-..........,.-..-........A
o,%
Problem 4.4-1
COMPUTATIONS
14.
Calculate the correction factors K and K

for bearing capacity (Section 4.3.2.6 and2
Equaticns 4-8 through 4-11).
""Kc
= ic
q
""ic
Sc dc bcgc
h'L
uN
L'Is
uN
/Fv
'=
-Fh
+q
= [*
= 900 (from Section 4.3.2.6)
=0 +
L'+(10.I
ft 1G)2
(ft/
..563
Nc = 5.14 (Figure 4.3-2)

Fv = Wbf ,,Wb - Fve =84.300 lb + 6,200 lb
- 20,000 lb
q sqdqbqgq
=1 "
L'
Z cot
= 70,400 lb
1
i'c
cos 2s a
+12 + S' L' ]sin2 I
"sc = 1 + (B,/L')(IN/N)d
.Sq = I + (B/L') tan
-1.
563) 20,000 lb
(10.1 ft)(13 ft)(497 psf)(5.14)
['
70,50
lb * (10.1 ft
)(13't
l)(O)lcot 30"
Jq = 0.594
Sq = 1 + (10.1 ft/13 ft) tan (300) = 1.449
dq = bq = gq = 1.0 (from Section 4.3.2.6)
Nq = 1.0. (Figure 4.3-2)
+ 10. ft
"dc =
1.151
bc = gc a 1.0 (from Section 4.3.2.6)
Kc = (0.907)(1.151)(1)(1)(1)
15.
1.044
Kq
(0.594)(1.449)(1)(1)(1) = 0.861
Calculate the short-term bearing capacity

"(Equation 4-1).
4Qu'*
Qu A'(su Nc Kc + Yb If Kq)
Qu
(131.3 ft2)[(497 psi)(5.14)(1.044)

(28 ocf)(1.3 ft)(0.861)]
3.,000 lb
Is there sufficient bearing capacity?
Fs Fn a (1.5)(68.500 lb)
Is Q >F F?
YES; Q > F F
p-.
4.21
0.907
102,800 lb
,]
Problem 4.4-1
16.
COMPUTATIONS
A = 169 ft 2 (no eccentricity)
Calculate the short-term bearing capacity

for the foundation when the mooring line
load is not applied.
Compare this to the
unloaded normal force, FnI

Fn =Wbf cos
0+
ic
Wb cos
Is there sufficient bearing capacity?

Is
Qu
>
2 + (13
1.50
sinf
(13 ft)(1_ ft)(40b. psi)i.4)(
'c
Fs Fn?
/it13ft)
i 20
+ 13 ft/13
3 ft
(
S )+1.9
=1.195
,.T
KC = (1)(1.195)(1)(1)(1) = 1.195
(1
70500 l+
= 0.666
Sq = 1 + (13 ft/13 ft) tan (300) = 1.577

Kq = (0.606)(1.577)(1)(1)(1) =.0.956"
2
= (169 ft )[(490 psf)(5. 14)(1.195)-
Qu
+ (28 pcf)(1.3 ft)(0.956)] = 515,000 lb
Fn = (84,300 lb + 6,200 lb) cos (5*) = 90,200 lb

Fs Fn
(1.5)(90,200 1b) = 135,300 lb
YES; Q > F Fn'
17.
Is stability against overturning suffi-
maximum e = 13.0 ft/6
cie.t? (Is thie resultant normal load

within the middle third of the foundation?)
At 8/3 from the foundation edge,
e 2 = 1.45 ft
YES;
maximum
maximum e
2.:.7 ft
-
B/6
Is *2 < maximum 9t
18.
Determine the minimum nmtber hear keys
sua = $
(from Equations 4-23 and 4-24).
(F, Fh
(Wbf*Wbst) sin
p]
R -
p
lip
Note:
Yb
-7-
at depth zs/2 = 173 psf

S
r- + 2(173 psf)(13, ft)]

(13 ft)
2s6,155 lb (per shear key)
2 Sum zs I9..
[n
[1.5(18,180 lb) + (84,300 lb + 0) sin (5*)]
Section 4.3.5.1 recmmends a minimum
spac'Ing equal to z.
'
* iza (rounded u
stear key spacing - B/n-i
from 7.2)
Therefore,
required spacing
13
h ft S -1 = 1.86 ft
The recommended minimum is z' z 1 3 ft.

Therefore, use 8 shear keys 1paced 1.86 ft
apart.
4-22
Problem 4.4-1
COMPUTATIONS
CALCULATE THE BEARING CAPACITY OF THE TRIAL FOUNDATION.

The trial foundation has been checked against bearing capacity failure, sliding, and overturning.
A
check is also made to see if the 84,300-lb buoyant foundation weight is sufficient to cause full shear
key embedment.
(This is a slow penetration calculation which is done by asethods deacribed in
Chapter 8.)
Initial and consolidation settlements cannot be calculated because there is a lac! of
sufficient data. They are also not considered important for a foundation or deadweight anchor, dhich
is placed on the seafloor to'resist only mooring line loads.
SUMARY
The soil-related aspects of the foundation design process have resulted in a foundation designed with
the f,-1lowing dimensions:
Side,
.................
13.0 ft square
Height
................
3.0 ft (excluding shear keys)
Buoyant Weight . .......... ...
84,300 lb
Shear Key Depth ... ..........
.. 1.3 ft
Shear Key Spacing ...........
... 1.86 ft
It
is noted that the design is most critical with respect to sliding stability.
3
IF
. Z
II
Figure 4-2Forces considered inthe overturning

analysis for example problem 1.
4,23
4.4.2
Problem 2
Simple Foundation on
from surface waves.
Cohesionless Soil
The seafloor is composed of
a medium-dense well-graded sand (cohesionless),

with the following properties having been deter-
4.4.2.1
dimensions
P-oblem Statement:
Determine the
mined
from
in-situ
or
laboratory
testing:
of a simple concrete square founda-
buoyant unit weight of 60 pcf and friction angle
tion, essentially a deadweight anchor, with a

perimeter skirt to resist given environmental
of 35 degrees.
(This is the same problem as
4.2.1 except that the soil is differeat and
loadings,
qkirts
at a shallow ocean site.
The seafloor
is mildly sloping and is composed of a cohesion-
without
interior
shear
keys
are
to be
used.)
less soil which has well-established properties.

Use a factor of safety of 1.5.
Data:
4.4.2.2
The foundation is to be placed where
the seafloor slopes at 5 degrees and must resist
solution
loads
method
from
20,000 pounds
mooring
in
direction
[see
sheltered
and no
line
that
may
reach
uplift and in any horizontal

Figure 4.4-1].
cyclic
The
effects
area
Problem Solution:
and computaticnal
are
procedures
shown
presented
for
below.
The analytical
for the problem's

They
follow
the design of a
the
square
foundation tc t,.sist the loads under the exist-
is
ing cone:
are expected
The forces acting on the foun-
dation are snown in Figure 4.4-3.
Problem 4.4-2
COMPUTATIONS
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES,
1.
Identify known foundation pareters.

Because the foundation Is to be only of
concrete, its size will be determined by
the suggested limiting relationship H S
0.258 (Section 4.3.4), and determined by
the necessary weight of concrete to prevent
sliding (Step 3).
Calculate Wb4, the minimum buoyant foundation weight hecessary to resistsliding

(Eouation 4-15). Note: This Is both the
short-term and long-term condition for a
coheslonleas soil.
bf "
(F
(F
5
p tan ft)Fh
-
F tan
ye
D =
f
=
The foundation has a
side length B. Assuime a skirt depth z of"6

Assume the fo~nda0.18 (Section 4.3.5.1).
tion will be placed in an orientation
parallel to the downslope direction and
embedded to a depth Zs.
2.
Fh = 20,000 lb
F
20,OGO lb
"
ye
bst
"f'"ien
Yb = 60 pcf (given)
=35 (drained)
F
;(rne
=1.5 (given)
tan (35o)
= 0.70
20,000 lb
Fh
F
20,000 lb
we
Wbst
W~e~F 00
5.
:
(0o.'o) tan
(U.10)
tan
20,000 lb
(Section 4.3.3.2)
4-24
(5i1(201000 lb)
- 1.5 tan (b-)

-
0 = 74,900 lb
Problem 4.4-2
3.
COMPUTATIONS
Calculate the dimensions of the trial

foundation necessary to yield an underwater
weight of Wbf.
y(cor,crete)
Wbf = Yb A H
0.25B
Bz
Yb
150 pcf - 64 pcf = 86 pcf

(4)(74,900 lb)/3
Say 8
Z
Therefore,
\1/
(4 w
8*Yb
= 15.16 ft
Pct
15 ft
="0.1(15 ft) = 1.5 ft
A = (15 ft)
150 pcf
= 225 ft
H =Wbf_.
74,900 lb
387 ft
A -b (86 pcf)(15 ft)Z
4.
Calculate F , the resultant force acting

normal to t~e slope.
F
Wbf cos
Wcos p - F
cos
-
Fh sin p
Wb= y Zs A = (60 pcf)(1.5 ft)(225 ft 2 )

= 20,200 lb
F =(74,900 lb + 20,200 lb
- 20,000 lb) cos (50)
- (20,000 ia) sin (5*)
Fn = 73,100 lb
5.
Calculate e , the (downslope) eccentricity

(Figure 4.321) by summing moments around
the center of the base of the skirt-line.
IMo a Wbf(H/2 + z.) sinpA
F
(
e
(IM
Fh(H
Wb(zs/Z)
sin
s
Zs
IM0 = [(74,900 lb)(3.87 ft/2 + 1.5 ft)

* (20,200 lb)(1.5 ft/2)
(20,000 lb)(3.87 tt + 1.5 ft)] sin (50)
+ 20,000 lb(3.87 ft + 1.5 ft) cos (50)
1
=129,500 ft-lb
e2
129,500 ft-lb/73,100 lb = 1.77 ft
Cos 0
S2 Nq/Fn
02
6.
oMIn
Calculate the bearing area reduced for

eccentricity (Equations 4-6 ano 4-7).
i'
"I"2
L' -
3- 2
01= 0
1
8' = 15 ft - 1.77 ft = 13.2 ft
L' = 15 ft- 0 = 15.0 ft
A' a (13.2
ft)(15.0 ft) = 196.0 ft2
A * 84 L5
4.25
---------------------------------
"--"-"""'
"s:"""................
.''.'*...""'
"%1%"
""'
Problem 4.4-2
7.
COMPUTATIONS
Calculate the correction factors K and K
8 = 900 (from Section 4.3.2.6)
for bearing capacity (Section 4.3.2.3 andy

Equations 4-8 through 4-11).
Kq =
Fv=. Wbf + Wb
F"
a' L'
[2.(L'/
T
'
4
Fo
O",l 9
1)2
=17
(e
"0"
o 4.623.2.6)
sy=1
sq = 1 + (13.2 ft./15 ft) tan (5") =1.077

- 0.'4(13.2 ft1s ft) =1.352
2.*(0'/L')IiZ2
--
,10
iy20,000
s
+
(13.2 Ib2"3"";
ft/iS t
.5
= 1 - rb, 100 1bF
0.457
cti
"/'
sq1)tnd
(1
s1
75,100 lb
ccot
ty-8' L'4ICOSL
Fv
c
N212-~~~--r
7
F+8
(13.2ft/1Sft/1 a (
= 1 +
iq
-I
Fve =74,900 lb
+ 20,200 lb - 20,000 lb
gy
F2
""
c = 0 (cohesionless soil)
Sq dq bq gq
KY = iy sy dy b
..
q = bq : gq =1.0 (Section 4.3.2.6)
":""
....
= b1 = g.1 = 1.g (Section 4.3.2.6)
0.4('/L')d
Kq = (0.623)(1.0ri)(1)(1)(1) = 0.671
Ky - (0.957)(1.352)(1)(1)(1) - 0.616
a.
NH 35 (Figure 4.3-2)
Calculate the short-tere ard Iong-term

bearing capacity (Equation 4-4).
Qu a A.$[b Of Nq Kq + (1/2) Vb 81'"1 Ky
0u
Is there suffir ant bearing capacity?
2N
50 (Figure 4.3-2)
(198 ft 2)((60
cf)(1.5 ft)(35)(0.671)
+ (0.5)(60 pcf(13.2 ft)(50)(0.618))
Is Q 'uFC F ?
Qu "2,80,,O0
F$ Fn
lb
(1.5)(71,100 ]b)
109,U)0
lb
YES; Qu v FS rn
?:
Is staility against overturning sufficient? (Is the resultant oorvul load

wititn the middle third-of the foundation?)
At 8/3 fro, the foundation edge.
a
1S.0 ft/6 u 2.50 ft
02 - 1.77 ft
YES; 62
8/6
Is a<
02
maxImum e
Mximu
iximm 0.?
4.46
:
.. .........:`:
.*
...
;-..--...
._.::...--..
.'..,.".'L'.'..".
:N."
*'
Problem 4.4-2
COMPUTATIONS
CALCULATE THE BEARING CAPACITY OF THE TRIAL FOUNCATION

The trial foundation has been checked against sliding. beaving capacity failure, and overturning. A
check is also made to sde if' the 74,900-lb buoyant foundation weight is sufficient to cause full skirt
embedrent.
(This is a slow penetration calculation that is done by methods described in Chapter 8.)
Consolidation settlements would not be calculated for a cohesionlcss soil, as they would be
negligible.
SUMMARY
The soil-related aspects of the foundation design process have resulted in a L)ncrele foundation
designed with the following dimensionsSide*...........
..............
Height ....... ................
Skirt Depth .... .............
..
Buoyant Weight ...........
.
.
'-
15.0 ft
3.87 ft
1.5 ft
74,900 lb
It is noted that the design is most critical with respect to down-.lop-, sliding, w',-ch was used to
figure the required minimum buoyant weight.
..
to-L
IS
,I
ft
",,1,
FIguro 4.4-3 Force considered in the overturning

analysis for examp!e problem 2.
4.5
REFERENCES
4-1.
Planning,
fixed
offshore
Institute,
API
designing,
platforms,
RP 2A.
and
2
Young's modulus of soil [F/L ]
e,el,e 2
Eccentricity [L]
American
Washinqton,
Petroleum
D.C.,
Jan
e oCeo
0
Initial void ratioo
Fh
Applied horizontal load
1982.
H.F. Winterkorn and H-Y.
engineering hsndbook.
Nostrand Reinhold, 1975.
4"3.
A.G.
New
Fang.
Foundation
York,
N.Y.,
Young et al. ' "Geotechnical
Factor of szfety
Fvpositive)
Vertical load
[F] component (downward
"F
Design environmental loading in

vertiral direction (upward is
Van ,2
consid-
ve
in foundation design of
offshore
gravity structures," in Proceedings of the 1975
Offshore
Technology Conference,
Houston,
downslope direction [F]
Fs
erations
1975.
F]"
Resultant of applied loads in the

Fhp
4-2.
constructing
is
porV: ve) [F]

Elastic shear modulus of soil [F/L 2 ]
Specific gravity of the soil grains
Tex.,
(OTC 2371).
g
OTEC single anchor
P.J. Valent ec al.
4-4.
holding capacities in typical deep sea sediments, Civil Engineering Laboratory, Technical
Correction factor for inclination of

ground surface
Height or thickness of the foundation

base [L]
Note N-1463.
H'
Vertical distance from point of

application of F to the point of
rotation (assumeg to be at the
foundation base) [L)
4-5.
T.W.
Port Hueneme,
Lambe
mechanics.
,.
and
New York,
R.W.
N.Y.,
Calif.,
Dec 1976.
Whitman.
John Wiley,
Soil
1969.
Thickness of individual cohesive soil
layer [L]
4.6
Si
SYMBOLS
AK
A
2
Foundation or anchor base area 'EL
)c
A'
Effective foundation or anchor base'

area [L2 ]

resultant load
KcKq, KY
Bearing capacity correction factors
Coefficient of passive earth pressure
p
Length of foundation or anchor base
[L]
A
Vertical projection'area of
installation [L 2 ]
'L'
Minimum foundation or anch)r base

dimension (usually called the
foundation width) [L)
Effective length of foundation or

anchor base EL)
Overturning moment [FL)
Ms
(Stabilizing) resisting moment [FL]
Effective minimum foundation or

anchor base dimension [L)

foundation or anchor base.
NC.N N
Bearing capacity factors
Cc C
Compression index
Number of shear keys oriented in

one direction
Effective cohesion if,tercept as

determined
by
bohr-Coulob envelope
[F/L 2 ,]
Assumed point of rotation
3B'
Of
Exponential term used in Equations
4-8 and 4-10
Embedment depth of foundation or

anchor (depth of shear key tip
below the seafloor)[L]
Poi
Initial effective overburden stress

at midpoint of it. soil layer F/L2
iv
Effective vertical stress EF/Li]
Correction factor for depth of base

embedment
AP
Applied uniform vertical 'stress from

foundation at base level
4.28
Increase in vertical effective stress

at depth z [Figure 4.3-6)
Wbst
Effective or buoyant weight of structure supported by a foundation (F)
Added effective vertical stress at

midpoint of ith soil layer [F/Lz]
Wbv
Submerged weight of installation

being lowered
Embedment force necessary to fully

penetrate shear keys [F]
Depth to the bottom of the foundation

base in soil EL]
Ultimate bearing capacity resistance

I[F)
Depth of shear key tip below the

foundation base EL]
"Qui
Ultimate lateral resistance of the

foundation or deadweight [F]
Slope of seafloor [deg]
Radius of circular foundation basetb
"EL]
Ybc
Buoyant unit weight of soil [F/L 3 ]

Buoyant unit weight of concrete
R
P
R
"4.-
Passive soil resistance [F]

Normal
,or"al soil reaction
racBuoyant
Ybf
[F/L3]
St
Sensitivity of cohesive soil
5c
Total consolidation settlement [L]
Correction factor for shape of base
Initial settlement [L)
shear strength of cohesive

soil EF/L23
Angle between the line of action of
"Q
A
'ci-.-Undrained
s
5
u
Sue4
Average undrained shear strength

between foundation base and tip of
shear key [F/Lz]
[F/L 3]
F uand the long axis of the

f undation
ii
Undrained shear strength of the soil

2
at shear key tip
IF/L
]
Maximiul allowable lowring veloci'ty
during installation [L/T]
Poisson's ratio of soil
Water content
Soil frictionwangle (deg]
Wb
S
Effective or weight of the soil

trapped within the shear keys [F)
Effective or buoyant weight of the
foundation or deadweightanchor [F]
Wbf
.Qim
a-..
Coefficient of friction between soil

and foundation or between soil and
soil when shear keys cause this type
of sliding failure
'Vx
-
"
unit weight of foundation
7."
Effective friction angle for drained

analysis [deg].
Undrained friction angle of
cohesionless soil [deg]
4.-
Chapter 5
PILE FOUNDATIONS AND ANCHORS
5.1
INTRODUCTION
Piles
installed
Sanchor
.:
5.2.2
are
by
deep
driving
foundation
or
by
elements
drilling-and-
Table 5.2-2
mooring line
shows
four
connections.
common
types
The selection
of
of a
grouting.
High installation costs dictate that

piles be used only where surface foundation or
type of mooring line connection should be based

on the relative importance of the factors listed
elements, such as shallow foundations,

deadweight anchors, ur drag or plate anchors,
and the cost.

Connection points, especially,
must be sturdy enough to withstand installation
cannot
stresses as well as service loads.
piles
supply
the
iupport
required.
Use
of
foundations or anchors becomes less

frequent as water depth increases due to asso-
as
increasing
rapidly
ciated
-.-.
Mooring Line Connections
installation
5.2.3
Load Capacity
costs.
This chapter describes pile types, designs,

installation considerations,
and presents a
design procedure.
sp
i
dTable
Modifications for Increasing Lateral
The lateral load capacity of a pile anchor

can e increased in several ways (as shown in
cansimplified
5.2-3):
by lowering the attachment point
along the pile length, by lowering the pile head
beneath the soil surface into stronger soils, or
5.2
PILE OESCRIPTIONS
5.2.1
by attaching fins or shear Collars near the pile

head to increase the lateral bearing area.
The
Pile Types
expected
Steel is the most common pile material used

offshore.
used
are
Prestressed
in nearshore
rarely
used
construction,
concrete
anchors
wood
are
in
pile
capacity
must
be
'installation procedure.
and harbor applications but

in
deeper
handling,
ties with long piles.
and
and
increase
weighed against increases in cost for fabrication and for the higher complexity of the
water
because'of
S.30
ESIGN PROCEDURE FOR SIMPLE PILES IN
and splicing difficulFor use as foundations
in deep water,
pipe
sections and
SOIL SEAFLOORS
5.3.1
General
H-piles are the most commonly used pile types.

A..
Anumber
of specially designed piles are also in
use as anchors [Ref S-1].
These special piles
are
(-
designed
c&pacity of
to
increase
the anchorage.
lateral
or
uplift
Table 5.2-1 lists
features of the more common pipe and H-piles and

of several types of specialty piles.
Pile foundations or anchors may be subjected to one or more of the following loads:
o Axial downward loads (compression)
"e'
Axial 'uplift loads (tension)

Lateral loads
ending m1s
Table 5.2-1.
Characteristics
Pipe and H-Piles
Umbrella Pilesa
Chain-1n-Holea
Rock Roltsa
Applications
Foundations and Anchors
Approximate
Maximum
Capacity
Axial: 20,000 kips

Lateral:
1,500 kips
300 kips in sand

100 kips in mud
550 kips
30 kips
Installation
Methods
driven or
drilled and grouted
driven
drilled and
grouted
drilled and
grouted, or
mechanically
wedged
Applicable
Soil Type
soil and rock
soils without
boulders and other
obstructions
rock, with
overlying soil
strata
rock
Advantages
easy to splice; high

capacity; can penetrate
through light
obstructions
high capacity in
high capacity
very low cost, no
Disadvantages
high cost; vulnerable

to corrosion
Remarks
pipe piles resist bending in any direction.
Illustration
(anchor pile shown)
Anchors
Anchors
uplift
Anchors
heavy mechanical
equipment necessary
maximum depth limited

by hammer; soils must
* be homogeneous;
inspection of connection not possible
inspection of
connection not
possible
rock must be
competent, nonfractured (shallow
water only), low
capacity
resistance developed
similar to plateembedment anchor'
(Chapter 6)
diver handinstalled, much

smaller size than
normal piles
(in-service position)
(wedged bolt shown)
alac
NH-P&.hn
aSpecial anchor pile.
'2-
Pile Types
52
5.2.%
....
-
-.
Table 5.2-2.
Side Padeye
End Padeye
Type of Connection
Mooring Line Connections

Swivel
Bridle
"Advantages
Omni-directional loading.
Easily inspected and
repaired.
Simple construction.
Applicable to H-piles.
Simple construction.
Distributes l:
pile,
Disadvantages
Can introduce torsional

stresses in pile.
Applicable for unidirectional loadings.
Uni-directional loading.
Cannot be inspected and
repaired.
iround
Omni-directional loading.
Eliminates torsional
stresses in pile.
Design must protect
. against fretting
corrosion.
Complex construction.
Illustration
....
.....
.
.....
.....
Table 5.2-3.
Technique
Advantages
-.
Collars
Shear
PlatesWith
Anchor
Lowered Attachment Point
Buried Pile Head
Attaching Fins
Lateral load is reduced.

Latera& resistance is
Lateral load is reduced.

Provides for scour in
sand.
Increases lateral
resistance.
Limits pile head
deflection and bending
moment.
Increases lateral and

uplift resistance.
Uni-directional loading.
and repair of
connection impractical.
Soil in frnt'of pile may
be w.ekened.
Inspection and repair of

connection impractical.
More Costly fabrication.
Complex installation.
More costly fabrication.
Limited experience with
system.
"higher.
Disadvantages
Techniques to Improve Pile Lateral Load Capacity
"Inspection
Illustration
(1..
-I.
S111PI
For simple pipe
are
resisted by
the
pile
(for
and H-piles,
soil
Lateral
forces
STIP2
downward
design is
axial
and
ITP 3
loads.
controlled
by
uplift
and
lateral
7'
significant moment may be present,

the
normally
loads.
.!..
However,
design is
For an anchor pile,
ALE4A
5-3
&wT
significant moment and uplift loads may also be

present.
_._
,--AT
5I
*:,.AEA
normally controllea by
lateral
and
moments are resisted primarily by the pile shaft

For a founbearing on the near-surface soils.
dation pile,
L''"."
OMI
LWDAT SFAO$
IDETEWMEI
bearing on the pile tip
loads).
or
SCAM
...
forces
friction developed along
shaft and by
downward
axial
<;"T"
---------
YE
depending on
--
s,
point of application of the lateral load.

A simplified procedure f sr the design of
ECTM|I
EFLECTWS:YW'
sJAlSTE
'EQ
layered~~TE
consstin
ofL
seflo
sandMinclyo
a nonpiles embedded
uniform cross-section
layered seafloor consisting of sand, clay, or
N5-4
6a
-T.-..
SEP
calcereous soil s is presented in Section 5.3.2.
STEP I_
*The objective of the procedure is to determine

if Vie pile length, width, and stiffness are
STEP
1-
.-.
DETIUN A
STEP9,LL,
,al
LOJU
CAL.ULATt.LAMW
capable of resisting applied moments and lateral
.-.
S-S
1.6ATTO
!
YES
Pnd axial forces at the seafloor without exces-
YE
is
sive movement and without exceeding the allowable stresses for the pile material.
a
trial-and-error
procedure,
where
Design is
a pile
is
!cLcuu
STEPS
selected and then is evaluated for its ability

to resist those forces and movements under the
existing soil conditions.
to
determine
stresses
pile is
if
the
foundation
with
an
of
this
type
Reference 5-2.
The procedure
pile
""
material
modulus
elastic
of
EU8TIOU 5-9
MSlS'
In the procedure, the

a beam on an elastic
increases linearly with depth.

tion
,aaT.
EMUATIMS
A check is then made
allowable
are exceeded.
assumed to be
CTRII
toil SiU
....
T"Tu Sits
that
SSI'-
Further descrip-
analysis
is
tO piles
applies
found
in
TIP
STEPis
s;
loaded at
SE16C.AKW~TIE
EE1WUTX.PILE
EQU
S.-1
-IO
6
',,s"
PILEICAPCIT$.
EQUAY!IM5-13
::
(Modifications tO this procedure

the pile head.
to account fcr other conditions are discussed In
;"':.
Section 5. 3.7. )
sections,' steps for,
In the followln9 text
.T
sTEP
are denoted In parentheses to the

pile' design
left of where the procedure step is presented.
Figure 5.3-1 suMiartzes the design procedure.
am....'
toICL S
that In this design a factor of safety iS

loads to the
applied by Increasing texecti
-.
1,
STE
Note
:';"e
before the pile is designed.
Sloads
FuFigure
..
t-
.e.'3'...
... .
".ig.-t
...
--
sumrz
3.1. Flow
Flow
.
fors
pil, design prpcedure.
- -d
t"'he
-" p-le
for"lesign
r..'
"-
5.3.2
If site-specific soil data are not available, it may be possible to extrapolate from
_oilPrpertie
other property 'data using geologic and geophysical information from similar nearby areas. In
the absence of any test-determined data, estimates of soil properties may be made based on
the geologic and depositional environment and
geoph~ysical data. Chapter 2 provides guidelines
for estimating engineering properties and iden-
1) Determine required soil engineering

properties. These properties should be sitespecific (i.e., based on in-situ or laboratory
tests, or both). The soil properties requir~ed
design are:
S(STEP
*for
For cohesionless soil (sands and silts),
some engineering properties of major

Additi',nal soil properties,
sediment types.
fictin agletifies
* effetiv)
= raied
[deg)
3
Yb= buoyant uni.. weight [F/L ]
0 =relative density (]Tables
Coheive
which are important to pile design', are given in

5.3-1 through 5.3-3 for cohesionless.
oils(clas),soils and cohesive soils based on soil density

or degree of consol~dation.
Where soil properties vary significantly
with depth, average properties in the uppermost
bundrained shear stenghthF/ I

egt(/
=buoatui
four pile diameters are used for lateral load

analysis (STEPS 4 through 11) and average propoe
h
ie
eghfrail la
ris
eghfrailla
vrtepl
ote
analysis (STEPS 12 through 18).
Calcareous soils,
Carbonate content, degree of cementation,
and degree of crashing (in addition to the
Pproperties required for cohesionless soils)
'Table 5.3-1.
%
'-Type
jBlo
W~
(pcf)
30-50
28-30
30-36
35-42
0-35
35-65
65-85
45-55
55-65
60-70
50+
'40-45
185-100
60-70
310
Very dense
Table 5.3-2.
.~.
Properties of Cohesive Soils

Useful in Pile Design
5
Typo
*
.(pus
Underconsli~dated clays
soils at depth z. in.
Overconsol idated soils
based on consistency:
mediuL*sti ff
stif,
very %tiff
YbD
(deg)
Cunt
Very loose to loose

Meiu
ene10-30
Dense
..
Staw lard
Penetration
Medumene
Properties of'Cohesionless Soil

-Useful in Pile Design
20-25
0.0033z
2-1
25-50
3.5-7.0
7.0-14,
14-280.
10
.
50-65
0.35-1.0
1.0
b5
(Pci)
i)
ovr 8
Table 5.3-3.
Prcperties of Calcareous Soil

Useful in Pile Design
Prooerty
Characteristic
low, 0 to IC%
medium, 30 to 45%
high, 457
Carbonate content
5.3.3
*'
Degree of cementation
uncemented or lightly cemented

well cemented
Degree of crushing
crushes easily
resistant to crushing
Pile Design Loads
where:
-.
Ph = design horizontal load at the

foundation pile [F]
Pt = design vertical uplift load at the
foundation pile [F]
PC = dtsign vertical compression load at
the foundation pile [F]
Determine the maximum load or load

Actual
at the seafloor surface.
(STEP 2)
-,r.
combinations
loads are determined from an analysis of what is

attached to the pile.
applied to the actual
loads
used
in
soils
data
are
the
A safety factor,
Fs,
In unusual cases, a roment may be.applied to the
is
foundation
loads to determine those
design.
accurately
If
the
known (from
pile.
This
actual
moment
should
similarly be multiplied by the factor of safety
necessary
in-situ
to yield a design moment.
testing or laboratory testing of core samples),

a safety factor of 1.5 to 2.0 is recommended.
Ma = F
x moment applied to the pile head
Ma = design applied moment [LF]
If soil properties are not accurately known, a

higher safety factor of 2.0 to 3.0 should be
where:
Within these recommnended ranges, higher

used.
values should be used where the installation is
(STEP 3) Calculate load a; a submerged anchor

pile head.
For anchor piles to be driven below
more critical and where the soil properties are
the seafloor surface,
more questionable.
the pile is
anchor
For
Th = F
piles,
the design
seafloor, due to soil bearing resistsnce againit

the mooring line. -The actual angle at the pile
loads are:
becomes higher and the force-exerted on the pile

becomes more of an axial load. To account for
x horizontal component of mooring

line tension at the seafloor
Tt = Fs x vertical coaponent of mooring

~ linetension at the seafloor
where:
this,
horizontal and vertical design loads
determined in STEP 2 must be corrected.
The
T = design horizontal load at the

h
anchor pile [F]
general effect of this correction is to decrease
Tt = design vertical load at the anchor

pile [F]
the horizontal load a pile mUSt resist and

increase the vertical or axial load. The force
correctinns
For foundation piles, the design loads art:
vative
include several simplifying conser-,

as
follows.
The correction to the horizontal
assumptions
and are
made
force is
the soil force that is exerted on the mooring

line in a horizonti1A directionz
Ph = Fs x horizontal component of load at

the pile
Pt
the mooring line angle at
not the same as that angle at the
Fsr x vertical uplift load at the pile

F
x vertical compression load at the

pile
For coheslonless soils,

V
2 d
FC
(51
zcdb bNq
5-6
S
.6
'
.j
,sY
'
For cohesive soil,

0
Fcb
where:
(STEP 5)
db z
piles, a suggested maximum lateral deflection

criterion is Ym/D = 10%, where yiax is the
maximum
altowable - lateral
deflection.
For
foundation piles, a more rigid deflection cri-
(5-b)
= horizontal
force exerted on the

mooring line by the soil F
cb
Z= depth of pile connection below

seafloor [L]
db
=characteristic
=
(forachainc
[L]
(for
chain,
mooring
line size
use 3xchaine sejustified
T'
Tt+
2 Th Fcb Fs
cb
reaction,
nh
r
and Tt'
where Th'
if
.
is determined for the selected
value of ymax/ 0 .
For cohesionless soils,
this
is obtained frem Figure 5.3-2 and r, the soil

relative density.
For cohesive soils, first
) 1
are used to determine .
Figure 5.3-3 and S
value for the coefficient K
Then nh is deter-
For
mined from the equation on that figure.
calcareous soils, Figuri 5.3-2 and a value of
(5-3)
.. . . .....
used
(
(STEP 6) Detemine
coefficient
of
slibgrade
reaction.
The coefficient of subgrade soil-
(5-2)
Fcb Fs
is
by structural requirements.
use 3 x chain
The corrected anchor pile design loads are:

Th
g.J
(a lower value of y, /O)
terion
size; for wire, use wire diameter)

N bearing capacity factor, from
Table 5.3-4
Th.
Select deflection criteria. For anchor
= 35% are used.
are the values for Th and TV
corrected for the effects o? a pile head being

driven to a depth zc below the seafloor.
Yrmax()
D
Table 5.3-4.
Soil Friction
Angle,
iaO
Bearing Capacity
Factors for Chain
Lateral Force in
Sand (After
Ref 5-3)
i 50
.6S
20
"
.
N
IF
(deg)
"
20
25
516
30
3S.
12
.40
22-
_5
36
100
5.3.4
Lateral Load Analysis
120--r
Select a trial pile

size.
The trialS-Figure
(STEP 4)
availability.
5.3-2. Design values for nh for colieionless
soils (after Ref 5-4).
and-error pile selection process begins with a

pile selection--usually made on the basis of
This determines pile diameter, 0;
wall thickness, tw; and stiffness, El.
5,7
V*
where a is the distance of the pile load attachment point above the seafloocr surface for foun-
Yr7
(%M
to
S'
dation piles [L] (a 0,
foundation pileswill not be driven below the sur'faco).
20
-----
Wft dly
-
stiff
daydesign
(Step 11) Compare pile cipacity

lateral load capacity.
100'
if Ph(calc)
h
Z
to
required
if Ph(calc) = P (or P 'or T ) or is slightly

h.gher. then Ah trial pile is
adequate for resisting lateral
loads.
a____
ds
or P 'or Th) then the piie

4~ oi~rd~signed h One or more of
the following changes are made
a.'-i
computations are repeated on
new trial pile size.
>> P
____
ISOthe
(a) Reduce pile stiffness by reducing
I~n1 -l
20(1
Idiameter
or thickness (repeat calcula-
Itionis
from STEP 4).
"educe pile length, unless
200(b)
already
very short (repeat calculations ,from
STEP 9).
Figure 5.3-3. Design values for nh for cohesive soils.
if Ph(cakc)
'P
The
(STEP 7) Deterr.ine pile-soil stiffness.
pile-soil relative stiffoess, T, is computed by:
1 El0.2
(or P ' or T ) then the Wie i

Jiderdes~gned. NOne or more of the
following changes are made and
computations are repeated on the
new trial pile size. Note: This
is done until P (calc) is only
sligh~tly greatieP than Ph
Depth Coefficienit ( z
(STEP 8) Select pile length
MT
A pile length, L.
p
as a minimum.)
(STEP 9) Determine deflection coefficients. The
maximum value of the depth coefficient zmax
IE
L /T is computed. Then deflection coefficients

p
Ayan d 8 at the ground surface are obtained
from Figure 5.3-4.2
(STEP 1,O)
Calculate lateral 1rad Cap_ i_. The
lateral load capacity of the tvial pile,
Ph(calc), for the value of yma), selected mi
STEP 5 is computed.
Ph(calc)
ymax (EI)
A T3 +a
y
-
_
T
(5)Figure
S.3-4. Deflection coeffiaanu
y~~fyM
shgou
urface.
S-8
....................................
" an
at.
A..
(a) Increase pile stiffness by increasing

diameter and/or thickness (repeat
calculations from STEP 4).
(b) Increase pile length, unless already
very long (repeat calculations-from
STEP 9).
(c)
Increase design depth of pile head
(repeat calculations from STEP 3).
5.3.5
soils, the average unit skin frictional resistance, f (in uplift and compression), is calcuS
lated from:
k pv0 tan (0 - 5 deg)
fs
(5-7)
Where k is 0.7 for compression

uplift.
Axial Load An~alysis
(STEP 12) Calculate average effective overburden

pressure. The average effective overburden Soil
and 0.5 for
Table 5.3-5 presents. limiting or maximum,

values for f .
It must be checked to ensure
5*
pressure (p ) at the pile midpoint is computed

vo
for-
that 'Alculated values of f do not exceed those

5
limit ing values. For piles driven into calcareioils, the table's limiting values shown
should be used unless higher values are justIified by on-site testing.
ous
(5-6)
(5-6
b L
For cohesive soils, first determine if the

soil
is normally consolidated or overconsolidated. To do this, an average value for
If the Pile is not fully buried, find pvoat the

midpoint of the ..,uried length. If the density
changes, average the densities along the pile.
S /P, over the pile length is computed. if

S /U
& 0
0.4. the soil is considered normally
consolidated (NC); if s /p > 0.4, the soil is
u vo.
considered overconsolidated (0C0.
(STEP 13) Calculate Skin frictional resistance

per unit length of pile.
For coheslonless
Recommended Limiting Values for Unit Skin Friction

and End Bearing for Coheslonless Soils
Table 5.3-5.
Soil Type
NOi$calcareous
Sand
35
Silty Sand
Sawndy slilt
30
25
silt
20
q,(max)
WSoil- -
30
40
2.0
200
25
20
'20
12
1.7
1.4
100
60
1.0
40
60
Calcareous Soils
Uncemented calcareous
sand (easily crushed)
rartially cemented
calcareous sands with
.carbonate content:
0 to 30%
30 to 4S%
above 45%
30
20
20
0.3a
--
2.0
--
0.6 4,
OSCa
100
160
140
11
140
c~lcareous soils such
L as ChalkL
aFor drillled and grouted piles. the valuje may approach '2.0 ksf-*the
value for quartz sand; actual va"u depends upon installs-'
ti on technique.
Highly cemented
--
tion resistance
fs
If
(5-8a)
Spile
tip [F/L ]
(5-11)
P 0o(tip) Nq
qp
For cohesive soils,
(5-12)
:, 9 su(tip)
qp
feet.
in
where Lp is
SFor
= unit soil bearing

capacity of that
2
For cohesionless soils,
Equation 5-8a exceeds su then
For
[L2]
is equal to:
Pvo (U.468 - 0.052 ln(Lp/2.0)]
fs
"
A = gross end area of the closed pile
where:
the average unit skin fric-
For NC soils,
tio
stress at
pvo(tip) = effective vertical
2
Vpile
tip [F/L ] ,
oiswhere:
OC soils:
N = bearing capacity faccor from

q
Table 5.3-3
[0.458
fs
0.155 ln(su6vo)A
"If Su/P
U VO
I=
strength
su(tipj = soil undrained shear
2
at pile tip [F/L ]
(5-8b)
su
VO
exceeds 2.0, ,then
Piles
14)
Compute uplift capacity and compare to
design
load.
piles,
the
For
both
frictional
"Qs.must exceed
"Pile frictional
anchor
and
closed-ended
resistance
of the
(When this
"the pile
considered closed-ended.)
is
the
required to
force
into a thin-walled pipe.
the designload for uplift, Pt"
approximately
resistance is:
of
equal
the pile,
push a
plug
up
capacity
frictional
computed as Q *
5
piles, Q
for open-ended
soil
This limiting value is
to the
previously
The soil
that can develop
to
pile,
will
removed and replaced with ccncrete,
plug will limit the value of Q
foundation
Asf
is
equal
Thereto Q
(5-9)
(STEP 16) Compare

where As
not
soil plug is
fore,
SQs
are
develop a soil plug when installed.
0.351s
(STEP
that
is
the surface
ar-ea of
the pile below
with
the seafloor [(1].
required
compression,
pile
capacity.
Qc,
is
capacity
in compression
'The
capacity
computed,
pile
in
and' this is
com-
load under vertical
com-
pared with
If
If
QS
P
then the design is adequate for
-i"rsting uplift forces.
pression,
then the trial

pile length is
Sicreased.
Although increasing the pile
diameter is another approach which will
increase Q , increasing pile length is
usually priferred.
15) Compute
soc. -bearing
foundation
pile
resistance
to
frictional
resistance
resistance
to
closed-ended
for
the pile
tip.
For
along
or
piles,
foundation
loading
compressive
tip
end
the
tip, Q.,
soil
is
capacity
the
computed
as
If Q
qp
Qs + Q
(5-13)
9 PC.
the pile is
adequate In
comprssion.
If Q < P * then the pile is not adequate in

C. csmpressibn.
The pile length must be
for
increased (repeat the calculations from

STEP 14).
from
For
If
using an open-ended pile and Q
was signifi-
capscity
cantly limited by the value of QS'
follows:
significant benefit
to plug
the
Recompute Qc for a closed-ended trial
--
Qp
from
pile and
penetration.
bearing
QC
piles,
comes
P
C
Qs < P
(STEP
the design
(5-10)
it
may be of
pi)e end.
pile and
again check for adequacy in compression.
10
/i
5.3.6
Figure 5.3-5; then computing the maximum moment,
Steel Stress Analysis
Mmax,
(STEP 17) Calculate maximum moment. The maximum
in the pile is determined by
moment (Mmax)
combining any applied (cosign)
-
and
"* .".
bending moments,
It may be necessary to determine Mmax at several
The latter is calculated by recomputing T
locations (z)
~0
from
the
curves
appropriate
Deflection coefficient (B )
for applied moment (M)
Momnent coefficient (B)

for applied ,'toment (M)
1,
Ii
.i+s,5&1
-00
"+'"'"
z/T.
.5
__
on
,.
along the pile in order
Lprr
foe 4, $-
oc
-ple
2ae~
prr4.5,&10LfY.2~1
-w-
L7r.r 5
jj-
Moment coefficient (A)
r
_L t
..- "
/P
.i..,.
, .
Mornent cofi et( M
,.*
LP/ US,:
3.
1
Deflectofi
. -
Figure 5.3-5.
2
coefficients. A
ad y
Influence values for a pile with

..
to find
the maximum value for Mmax'

This is done by
entering Figure 5.3-5 with the several values of
(STEP 7) and L /T (STEP 9) for the current trial

pile; selecting the influence coefficients A
?d"6
(5-14)
(Am + a Bm) Ph T + Ma
Mmax
M., and moments created by the design 'horizontal

load.
at a point along the pile by:-
0.4
0.
Moment Coefficients, A(
''
0.6
ad B
(after
)ef
rpplied lateral load of moment
52).
.*.
.-.-.
(STEP 18) Calculate maximum steel stress.
.........
Maxi-
side of
......
an anchor pile at a distance of more
mum stress in the pile under tension (f maxt) and
than
"compression (fmaxc)
simplified approach
is calculated by:
five
for
"fmaxt
P/Aps -Mmax/S
fmaxc
Pc/Aps
Mmax/S
pile
lateral
diameters
load
is
For
the
a lateral load analysis must be made by other

means, such as with the assistance of a computer
load,
lowered from the pile top to a point
down the pile.

The mooring line will
also approach the pile at
a decreasing angle as
the connection point is lowered, thus greatly
'midway
maximum stress in tension and compression from

below are availaole fr-- steel design manuals or
data
For the same lateral
pile deflection and bending moments are reduced

significantly as the mooring line connection
point is
containing
not adequate.
(5-16)
The terms As and S and allowable
manufacturers
literature
these pile shapes.
the
anchor pile with such a buried side connection,
cross-sectional area of the p;le

w sctL2]
A
S = section modulus of the pile [1.3]
Note:
head,
in Section 5.3.4
(5-15)
program [Ref 5-5).

'where:
from the
presented
on
pitfre force.
uplift
Where
the
mooring
line
chain.
is
almost
parallel to the pile, the presence of chain

(STEP 15) Compare calculated and allowable steel
stress.
The values for f
and f
are
alongside the pile and the influence of repeated
maxt
maxc
mooring loads may also reduce the soil strength
compared with the allowable steel stress inresistance
above the
tension and compression for the pile being used.
For mQst commo., structural shapes fa- the allow-
connection point.
able maximum stress in tension and in bending

(tension and compression), is at least 0.6 Fy,
5.3.7.2
where Fy is the minimum yield point of the steel
Pile size may be
being used.
surface to increase resistance to lateral loads
If fmaxt and fmaxc I allowable,
near the
seafloor
loads is much more complex and is usually done

with the aid of computer programs [Ref 5-6,
If f maxtor fmaxc ,> allowable,
then the pile is
5-7].
In general, a large increase in pile

diameter over a small depth is more efficient in
A new trial pile size
with a larger section modulus
reducing deflections
('larger t. or 0) is selected (repeat
small incease
the calculations from STEP 18).
When enlarged pile sections at, the' pile head are

'used,
It
increased
and bending moments.

Analysis of the response
of piles with variable cross section to lateral
then the pile is
adequate.
inadequate.
Piles With Enlarged Cross Section.
at the seafloor than is a
in diameter over a larger depth.
the length of the enlarged section should
is also possible to reinforce the pile over
be limited to three times the larger diameter.
that length where high moments exist. This will

result in a larger section modulus and may be
done rather than using a larger pile.
While
number of seafloor conditions can be considered
this is often done because it
hazardous
to
pi'les
the oft0..
f
5.3.7.3
is cost-effective,
it is beyond the scope of this handbook.
in
Specla. Seafloor Conditions.

the
placement
re
or
functioning of
environment.
Some
of
these are listed below.

5.3.7
Special Cases
5.3.7.1
Head.
slin seafloors and accompanying

down-slope soil movements can cause' adoitional
'Steeply
Load Applied Below the Anchor, Pile
lateral pile forces in the downslope direction.
When the mooring line is connected to the
In.addition, steep sloping makes the area more
5.-12
subject to instability problems such as might be
the moving soils.
initiated by seismic activity or wave forces.

The presence of rocks, cobbles, or cemented
areas where such problems can be anticipated,

the design should be based on a thorough evalua-
zones
tion of such hazards and their influence on the
can make
difficult.
installation
of
driven
piles
Drilled and grouted piles may be the
For important structures in
structure.
best method of pile installation in areas where

these occur.
Scour of near-surface
can
be accentuated
soils can occur and
in the vicinity
DESIGN OF PILE ANCHORS IN ROCK SEAFLOORS
5.4
of piles.
Scour extent depends on the velocity of seafloor

currents,
the type of
configuration
granular
of
soils
than cohesive
upper
S to
Removal
soil,
. pile
are more
soils.
groups.
Generally,
dure
to scour
For granular soils, the
1U feet may be
subject
to
to pile anchor design in rock
Is presented in this section.
susceptible
this surface mat-rial
of
An approach
and the size and
for
pile
anchor
A detailed proce-
design
in
rock
is
not
presented because this cannot be done simply-primarily because of the difficulty in charac-
scour.
terizing the material failure mode.
can slgnifi-
Rock
failure
modes
are
illustrated
in
cantly affect pile behavior, and the possibility
Figure 5.4-1.
of this occurring should be taken into account
may occur in lateral bearing due to rock crush-
"during pile
ing under lateral loads.

It may also fail in
uplift because of a failure of grout-to-rock
design.
Scour is discusse~d in more
detail in qhapter 10.
Earthquak -related
'hazards
should
be
bonding or
Failure of a pile anchor in rock
because
of a
rock-mass
failure
in
assessed in seismically active areas. Earthquake

"notions may cause partial loss of strength, or
fractured material.
Uplift failure can also
occur due to the pile's loosening and the loss
complete
of
zones,
liquefaction
essentially
in
loose
removing
granular
soil
soil
support
resistance as a result of repeated lateral
loads.
developed in these zones.

Additionally,
a
weakened zone may slide downslope and overload
The mode of failure is difficult to estab-,

lish or predict for a specific location.
The
the pile due to high lateral
strength of a cored
force applied by
sample may
be misleading
rock ucafloor
~~~:
:l I .1
. .......
X
craushed
VCcfractured
,:'..".oc
:
::.:..
yrock
::i!
~~~~x
(a) Lateral bering fulure of

rock and pile
(b) Uplift failure of pouto-eock

bodming
(c) uplift blk

ure of
pile -ad rock-mi-s
Figure 5.4-1. FaIlure modes for pile machon in a rock seafloor.
&-13
"when
applied to the prediction of pile anchor
develop
all support from the soil layer.
The
holding capacity in jointed, bedded, faulted, or
pile de'ign should be made with the soil anal-
weathered rock masses.
ysis procedures presented in Section 5.3.
Gross rock characteris-
tics will likely govern pile behavior,

gross characteristics
and these
If zs/T < 3.0, then the pile can be conser-
must be thoroughly evalu-
vatively
designed
as
if
the
soil
were
not
ated at each pile location,
present.
"5.4.1
forces without assistance from the soil layer.
That is, the pile is considered cantilevered'out of the rock surface and resists all
Lateral Capacity
If
In a rock or hard cemented soil seafloor,
"soil cover
zone
may be
underlain
by
Sc,
soil.
should
be
used
[Ref 5-6,
5-7]
is
lateral
For layered soil-rock sites, available computer

programs
if
mine
may be present above the rock, or the
rock/cemented
this is done,
a check must be made to deterstrength of the
the compressive
exceeded by
load.
stresses
That is,
a check should be made
to ensure that:
to
account for the complexities introduced by these
Ph
<
S
(
nonuniform conditions.
where:
Soil Overlying Rock.
5.4.1.1
overlying
rock,
estimated
by
pile capacity
the
following
For
can be
procedure.
relative depth to the rock, z /T,
soil
roughly
Ph = lateral force applied to the pile

h head [F]
Le = effective length of the pile
bearing on the rock strata equal to
the smaller of: (1) the rock layer
thickness, z,
or (2) a depth
The
is determined,
where z is the thickness of th( soil over the

.s
rock and T is the pile relative stiffness.
If
zs/T Z 3.0,
rock,
from the applied
the pile can likely be designed to
Table 5.4-1.
Rock Type
interval equal to the diameter of

the pile, 0
= rock compressive strength (see
Table 5.4-1 for typical values of
sc [F/L 2 ]
Rock Properties (after Re# 5-8)

Compressive
Strength,
(kstg)
Buoyant Unit
Saturated
Weight,
(pcf)
Dolerite
28.4-49.8
123
Gabbro
25.6-42.7
123
Gneiss
7.1-28.4
117
Basalt
21.3-42.7
111
Quartzite
21,3-42.7
101
Granit6
14.2-35.6
98
Morble
14.2-35.6
98
Slate
14.2-28.4
98
Dolomite
11.4-35.6
92
Limestone
4:3-35.6
73
Sandstone
Shale
2.8-24.1
1.4-14.2
61
61
Coal
0.7-7.1
5.14
Yb
"5.4.1.2
Rock Layer Overlying Soil.
For the
should be limited to 27 psi.
bond strength may vary from 0.3 to 1.0 times the
if
rock shear strength, depending on cleanliness of
the rock layer thickness,
z ,
is
less than
EI/nh)0.2 and nh is the coeffi-
0.2T, where T =
cient of soil reaction of the underlying soil,
the drilled hole,
Section 5.3.2.
Sgreater
For rock layer
than O.5T,
soil may be
rock
the
thickness,
Zr-
5.4.2.2
rock,
Fractured Rock.
anchor
ignored and the pile designed for
the anchor and by the frictional force developed
compressive
strength
as
under
Section
between the attached blocks and adjacent blocks.
Zr,
Because
designer must judge whether to use the soil or
normal
forces
rock procedure;
cracks,
this
For
intermediate
values
of
the
the decision depends upon pile
ignored.
5.4.2
5.5
Uplift Capacity
Failure
due
to
uplift
load
may
the
In (3),
the
difficulty
acting
Piles are installed
joints
is
and
normally
in the offshore envi-
methods:
in
The
force
the
ronment by one or a combination of the following
e Driving
e Drilling and grouting
* Jacking
Figure 5.4-1(c).
estimating
on, vertical
frictional
block of rock containing the pile is assumed to

be lifted free of the surrounding rock as shown
"for design
in
PILE INSTALLATION
occur:
(2) at the
grout-pile interface,
"grout-rock
interface, or (3) along a rock fracat
ture zone outside the grouted area.
following guidelines
Jetting
are suggested.
"5.5.1
5.4.2.1
Aim,
of
diameter, knowledge of rock layer strength and

fracturing, and the layer thickness.
(1)
fractured
determined by
the mass of the blocks of rock which move with
'-.
For
influence of underlying
5.4.1.1.
and grouting
uplift capacity is
'".
""
rock,
procedure.
and the pile designed by using the procedure of
-"
type of
influence of the rock layer may-be ignored
the
"-
The grout-to-rock
case of rock or other hard layer overlying soil,
Massive,
Competent
Rock.
Driven Piles
For
massive, competent rock, uplift capacity will be

governed by frictional forces developed by the
Piles may t4 driven by impact hammers

operated above the water surface, by underwater
grout
impact hammers, or by vibratory hammers.
bonding strength alcng the pile,
by the
grout ;hear strength itself, or, less likely, by

"the grout bonding strength along the drilled
shaft wall.
For failures of these types,
uplift capacity,
the
Ra, of the rock anchor is given
by:
S=sbLr C
b
where:
sb
r p)
the lesser of (1) the grout-to-pile

bonding strength, or (2) the shear
strength of the grout [F/Lz]
Lr length of pile embedded in rock 1]
Cp = minimum ptrimeter transmitting tho

uplift load [L]
5.5.1.1
Conventional Hammers.
Piles
for
piers,
harbor structures, bridges,

and many
offshore structures in shallow water are driven
from above the water surface with conventional
hammers used in pile driving on land. The pile
is made long enough to extend above the water
surface when driven to its design penetration
depth or, alternatively, a pile follower is used
[Figure 5.5-1].
The piles are commonly guided
by
template
that
rests
on
the
seafloor,
although floating templates may be used for

small, shallow-water installations.
The piledriving Operation is conducted from a carefully
Unless higher bond strengths are verified

by testing,
*
**;-,5.1
the grout-to-steel bonding strength
moored work barge
that supports
Crones and auxiliary equipment.
the necessary
ft.
t..
hamme~r
J%---
"--drill string
"I'- follower
ftt
......
...........
S~pile
bit
"
S~~grout
,"-
(a) 'Driving (from ocean surface)
(b) Drilling and grouting
Figure 5.5-1. Pile installation techniques.

The pile hammers used for this construction
are
scaled-up
types
versions of
include
air,
diesel,
land hammers.
single-acting
The
steam,
compressed
and hydraulic hammers.
The rated
energy of these hammers varies
from less than
number
developed
of
over
large
the
hammers
last
have
10 years
that
been
are
capable of both Above and underwater operation.

Some
of
these
hammers
have
rated
striking
energies of up to 1,700,000 ft-lb.
100,000 ft-lb per blow to over 1,500,000 ft-lb

per
blow.
been
Surface-operated
used
in
water
pile drivers
depths
in
have
excess
of
1,000 feet.
Underwater Vibrators.
5.5.1.3
pile
drivers
are
American practice
The success of the surface-driven method of
their
use
and
becoming
as more
powerful
developed.
the presence of the template to act as a guide
rotating eccentric weights
for the piles.
or
Without the restraint offered by
machines
The machines usually
hydraulic
common
in
as experience is gained with
pile emplacement in deep water is dependent upon
the template,
Vibratory
more
motors
use
are
counter-
powered by electric
to produce
the
vibratory
most of the driving energy would
forces.
be dissipated by lateral deflection of the pile.
present
For anchor piles driven from the surface without
long
lateral
hydraulic liras and the. large friction losses in
restraint,
reasonable maximum
water
depth appears to be about 250 feet.

5.5.1.2
Underwater Hammers.
operated
while
Several
in
energies
rated
60,000 ft-lb.
These
submerged
with
stan-
surface.
Because
factors
on
large-diameter,
high-pressure
little
5.5.1.4 Selection of Hammers. When selecting a hme for Mllghtor" offshore tasks, where
loss
of
steam cools
too much
compressed air is
~5.18
."
.-
vibratory drive to about ,1,000 feet.
hammew
required
hae150,000 ft-lb, a
usually used to operate the hammers.
J.
lengths of
of
be
The modifications consist primarily

of providing exhaust hoses that extend to the
when the hoses go underwater,
depth-limiting
systems are the, difficulty in handling
ai r
may
efficiency.
water
major
the line..
These factors limit the maximum
practical depth of a surface-powered, hydraulic
dard terrestrial 'pile hammers may be modified

f'or operation underwater.
One manufacturer
of
12 steam/compressed air
makes a total
with
ham~ers
8750 ft-lb to
The
than
less
are
energies
general rule of thumb for
-For steam/air hamers, the weight of the pile

should be no more than two times the weight
of the hammer ram.
a. For diesel hammers,, the rlght o-. the pile
should be no more than four times the weight
of the ram.
.f.
..
"
For vibratory drivers, the driving amplitude,

of the driver/pile system should be between
0.25 and 0.5 inch].
For "heaver" tasks,
the drill
scring,
and the pile is
placed over
the drill string and loered into the hole.

Portland cement grout is pumped down the drill
string and forced up outside of the pile to fill
where hammer energies
in excess of 150,000 ft-lb are required, the

"
maximum
rated energy of a steam/air hammer
the annular void and bond the pile to the soil.

Then, the interior of the pile is filled with
required to drive a steel pile should be esti-
grout
mated by:
[Figure 5.5-2].
2,000 APS
Eh.
where:
as
the
drill
string
is
withdrawn
(5-19)
= maximum rated energy of the

hammer (ft-lb]
Aps = area of steel cross section [in. 2 ]

This recommendation
stress
in steel
is
of
based on the allowable
12,000 psi
under
working
loads.
For
preliminary
hammers,
it
selection
of
air/steam
is recommended that Equation 5-19 be
used to estimate maximum hammer energy.
(For
diesel hammers, the maximum energy of the hammer

may be 20 to 35% higher than the value given by
5-19.)
__Equation
-These
recommendations
assume
that the pile will be driven to the maximum

axial capacity.
In cases where lateral load
governs pile design and full ixial capacity of
the pile cross section is not mobilized, hammers
with sigaificantly
AOL
less rated energy than given
by Equation 5-19 may be adequate to drive the

pile to its design penetration depth.
For all
important Installations, pile driveability must
be
investigated
Equation 5-19
analyses
by
using
beyond
the
use
available
the
of
level
wave
computer
of
equation,
programs
[Ref 5-9.-5-10] to evaluate the proper combination of' pile-hammer-cushion system.
5.5.2
Drilled and Grouted Piles
plsBy use of drilling and grouting procedures,

Piles up to 6 feet in diameter have been placed
in water
depths
method is
essentially identical
in' excess of
set a casing for an oil well.
600 feet.
The
to that used to
A hole of some-
what larger diameter than the pile is drilled to

proper depth using rotary drilling tools.
The
Figure 5.5-2. ODilled and grouted pile.
hole is c leaned out by pumping seawater through
,.
5-17
5.5.3
Jack-in Piles
Piles
seafloor
may
if
supplied.
be
5.6' EXAMPLE PROBLEMS

pushed
&gainst bearing capacity
design
loads,
jacking
times the
loads
design
With mobile offshore
the
5.6.1
failure
equal
under
Problem 1--Pile Design in a Cohesive Soil
to two
to
load must be applied,
jack-up platforms,
5.6.1.1
anchor
water
ballasting or the
addition
and
merged,
water
removal
of deadweight ballast is generally not
Problem Statement:
pile
loads.
for specified
Also,
determine
Design
lateral
and
an
uplift
Can
ing?
Data:
designed
placed
in
A closed-ended anchor pile is to be

for a floating drydock which will
be
an area with a soft clay seafloor.
The drydock will be used for repair of nuclear

submarines.
The pile must resist lateral loads
up to 50,000 pounds and axial uplift loads of
'and-pinion system may be used, with the rack

"being an integral part of the pile and runring
25,000 pounds applied by a chain mooring system

at the seafloor. At some later date, the pile
entire length.
A chain acted on by a chain
may be used as a foundation pile and see pure
jack or a cable acted on by a hydraulic cable
compression loads.
puller
shown in
FigureS.6-1.
site
fairly well 'known
may be
used,
with
the chain
or cable
applying load to the top of the pile.
A short-
are
A sketch
of this pile is
The soils data at the

and are
shown
in
stroke hydraulic jack equipped with a means of
Figure 5.6-2.
gripping the wall
limited. A supply of 24-inch-diam and 48-inchdidm steel piles (F = 36,000 psi) of several
of a pile may also be used.
S5.5.4
into
the
area,
soil
by
portions
diameters
whic0
Jetting.
"generally confined
of 'the
The
has
been
jetting
action
is
are
very
used
both air and water are forced down a pipe inside

or outside the pile. The air/water mixture is
.*
used to lift the displaced soil materials to the

surface or seafloor.
in a form of reverse 'irculation
'-
Problem Solution:
The trial-and-
solution are presented below.
These follow the
method presented in this chapter and outlined by

the flow-chart in Figure 5.3-1a
'
Jetting can also be
".
5.6.1.2
greatly
sizes
error computational procedures for the, problem's
to the inside of a pile or to

outside 4;f the pile several
above its tip.
4.
pile
wall thicknesses is on-hand.
Jetting is used to place piles in cohesionsoils.

The piles are pushed or lowered
weakened
Available
Jetted Piles
less
a pile which is on-hand be used for this moor-
practical.
The actual jacking of the piles can be
accomplished by a number of systems.
A rack-
Sits
'-"
its axial capacity in
compression and the maximum steel stresses.
is used to develop this surcharge.

when the entire installation is sub-
ballast
However,
into
To develop a satisfactory degree of
safety
three
or jacked
an adequate reaction force can be
%*,
in which
i.,..4
..
.,--
*,
tj
.. '..'
Undrained shear szrenph, s~-ps

1
2
3
U4
~0
25,000 lbs
40
20(a)~..
.rbe
.ketc
iur..-1 P.le.ktc ... .o.ea

pe. rbem.iur
1
..................
.- 2
olsdt for...
exam....le problm 1
Pro....e.
5.6ANALTICA
PROEDURS
1.
COPUTAION
DtrAesilpoeteOSTP1Lad
s~ad
--
.- )
(aste
poles arket
available).a
Diur 562
in..
e foro
e aml piolem
Datar
on-1 theoplemskaetac
deig
manual.
Prole
7.47.
Seectdefiectain
pritertias (STEP 5).u Fro
an
(STEPto2)(5.
~.
Fgr
so-
48ln-d
4.
aegvn
Tt
ericl
Sx ladatth safoor
First,__
0-1.
xml polm1
uadY(0argivn)
2
(F
.4rIn.6-)
ro3.4:n53.).poetisaewelko
T F
x hoiotllaattesfo
h -s
aafo
fI
pil
thtwl
Seetatilpl
ie(TP*)(4,n
T (20(000b)=1000b
h
T z (.p(2,00
aesfiin
aea
4i.pl
l)5-5,009
odcpct
wt
.-
altikes
Problem 5.6-1
"_"'"
5.
COMPUTATIONS
Determine the coefficient of subgrade
Four pile diaoeters = 96 in.
K determined from
reaction, nh (STEP 6).
Figure 5.A and s . s Iveraged for pper
pe
vref
four pile diameter
@ 0 ft = 1.0 psi
@ 96 in. = 1.32 psi
nh =
avg. su = 1.16 psi

K1
20 (soft clay)
nh = (1.16PSi(20)
6.
Determine stiffness (STEP 7) (from|(7.647

Equation 5-4).
T=
7.
8.
0.967 oci
x 1010 in.2-'b\ 0.2

]bin
= 151.2 in.
T= ,
T
O.2
(Inh
"_:_"-_"
Select pile length (STEP 8).

given in Section 5.3.4.
Say Lp = 3"T
Guidance
Lp =3(151.2 in.)
Determine deflection coefficients (STEP 9).

From Figure 5.3-4, and the calculated
deflection coefficient zmax = Lp/T.
452.6 in.
453.6 in.
Zmax =151.2 in.
a-38 ft
A/= 2.7
3y = 1.8
9.
Calculate lateral load capacity (STEP 10).

From Equation 5-5
Ymax (EI)
Pcc)
A
10.
a = 0 (because load applied at seafloor)

cPh(cet
T + a 8
2
-lb)
1010
+ 0""
)4 in.
in.,)7.647 2 x 1n.
2calc)
I (Z.7)(151.
=2.4
= 19,
lb0
lb
Check lateral load against pile capacity
Th = 100,000 lb
(STEP 11)..
NO; Ph(calc) << Th.
Is Ph(Calc)
THEREFORE,
BECAUSE P (talc) IS TOO SMALL; THE
24-IN. PILE IS TOO SMALL,

11.
Try another trial pile size'(STEP 4).

(Because P (calc) is very much smaller,
increase beth the pile size and thickness.)
Try a 48-in.-diam pile with a 1.0-in. wall

thickness.
..
0 =48 i~n.,--tW
1.0 in.
El = 1.224 .( 1012 lb0in."

Aps
S
12.
Select deflection criteria (STEP 5).
Ynax%
147.6 in.
=1,699.6 ln.3
Yax
- 10,
&.20
(0. 10)(48 in.)
4.8 in.
,:
'.
Problem 5.6-1
Determine n
Figure 5.A3-,
,
K
13.
(STEP 6).
KI, and
COMPUTATIONS
From su,
su @ 0 ft
0
@4
nh
1.0 psi
-=su @ 16 ft
1.64 psi
avg. su = 1.32 psi

K1 - 20
L=
"""
n (1.32 psi)(20)
nh =
48 in.
0.5$5 pci
rh
"14.
Determine stiffness (STEP 7).

"Equation 5-4.
T =
From
T
102 lb-in.)
.224
0.2
295 in.
0.2
(E\
15.
Say Lp
16.
Determine deflection coefficients (STEP 9)

from Figure 5.3-4 and zmax = Lp/T.
3 T
3(295 in.)
74 ft
={3
A, = 2.7
By
1.8
18.
85,000 lb
Th = 100,000 lb
(STEP 11)
NO; Ph(calc) < Th
-Is Ph(cac)
19.
= (4.8 in.)(1.224 x 1012 lb-in.

(2.7)(295 -in.)- + 0p
,hcac)
"
.
10)
Calculate lateral load capacity (STEP
from Equation 5-5.
17.
th?
THEREFORE,
BECAUSE P (caic) IS TOO SMALL,
48-IN. PILE IS TOO

...
h
Try another trial pile size (STEP 4).
(Because P (calc) is only a little smaller,
don't incrgase the pile diametep but,
increase the wall thickness.)
THE
LL.

thickness.
0 = -18 in.
tw 21.25 in.'
El 2 1.506 x 1012 lb-in.'
Ap
"20.
Determine stiffness (STEP 7).
Note:
The
nh
a 183.6 in.,
aS2,091 in. 3
2
0.55 pcI
deflection criteria and nh remain the same,

. '-
21.
T=(EIO.
Say L. = 3 T ''3(307
05 1o2
blin.4
0.2T
.sox
lb-n.
in.)
n
in.
77 ft
"5.21
*
*,,
*---
%'
..
Problem 5.6-1
COMPUTATIONS
22.

from Figure 5.3-4 and za = L/T.
= 3
max
,Ay = 2.7
y
(By not needed)
23.
Calculate lateral load capacity (STEP 10)

from Equation 5-5.
a = 0
2
(4.8 in.)(1. 506 x 1012 lb-in. )
3
(2.7)(307 in.)
+ 0
= 92,000 lb
24.
25.
26.

(STEP 11).
Th = 100,000 lb
Is Ph(calc) Th?
NO; P caic) < Th

THEREFORE, THIS PILE IS ALSO TOO SMALL.

try a
(Because P (calc) was close to P
slightly Alnger pile. A pile wi h a
larger tw could also be tried.)
Because the same pile size is used, D, tW, EI,

ApS.S, nh, and T remain the same.
hp
102 ft
Say Lp
4 T = 4(307 in.)

from Figure 5.3-4 and zmax = Lp/T.
zmax = 4
Ay :2.4
-.
-:r
(3y not needed)

27.
Calculate lateral load capacity (STEP 10)
12
lb-in.1)
(4.8 in.)(1.506 x 1C
Ph(calc)
(2.4)(307 in.)J + 0
from Equation 5-5.
104,000 lb
28.

(STEP 11).
Is
Ph(Ca~t)
Th = 100,000 lb
Is
~T~?YES;
P~ca'~)
Ph~ac
a T h?
>
Th
THEREFORE, THE PILE IS ADEQUATE FOR LATERAL

LOAD.
Now, check the pile for its uplift capacity (axial upwdrd load analysis).
29.
-"rage overburden pressure

Calculate the
From
,nt (STEP 12).
at the pile mi
Figure 5.6-1b ana Equation 5-8
Yb @ 51 ft = 25 pcf + (51/100)(40 pcf - 21 pcf)

"=32.6 pcf
(32.6 pcf)(102 ft)
Pvo =
S.....--.
Pile midpoint a 51 ft
. .
....
..
.. .
a1.660 psf
. .
..
.,
'''
5&22
-.-.
u .
Vi
..
"
-.
>
..
Problem 5.6-1
"ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
30.
COMPUTATIONS
Calculate the skin frictional resistance

length of pile (STEP 13). First:
Is this an NC clay?
"per unit
@ 51 ft = 1.0 psi + (51/100)(5 psi

= 3.0 psi = 432 psi
'
u 432 psi
TPvo pi
1 0.4, it is.
If su/pvo
.o
1 psi)
0.26
From Equation 5-8a (NC clay)
YES; it is an NC clay.
fs = (1,660 psf)[0.468
=Pv[0.468 - 0.052 ln(Lp/2)]
f" =
.0
(not t- exceed f.
SU)
0.052 In (102 ft/2)]
fs = 437 psf
but su = 3 psi = 432 psi

Therefore, fs
S31.
As
Calculate the uplift capacity (STEP 14).

From Equation 5-9p
Qs
432 psf
n 0 Lp = n(4 ft)(102 ft) = 1282 ft2
Qs = (1282 ft 2 )(432 psf)
554,000 lb
As f
S32.Is
the pile capacity in uplift greater than

the uplift load? (STEP !I)
s Q >YES;
s
TLt
.Tt
50,000 lb
Qs > 50,000 lb
THEREFORE, THE PILE IS ADEQUATE FOR UPLIFT
CAPACITY.
Now, calculate th@ pile load capacity iii compression (axial downward load).
33.
Calculate the pile tip bearing capacity,

(STEP 15). From Equations 5-12 and 5-10,
qp =
Extrapolate from Figure 5.6-2 for su

s(tip) = su @ 102 ft
5=o
psi + (2/iOO)(5 psi
- I psi) =5.08 psi
u(tip)
qp
Qp = Ap qp
9(5.08 psi) = 6,580 psf
Ap =x 0-n(
=
Qp
34.
Calculate the pile capacity in compression

(STEP 16). From Equation 5-13.
m...
,,
5 23
ft)
= 12.57 ft2
ft 2 )(6580 psi)
Q = 554,000 lb
c
Qcl2 Q + Q
= (12.57
83,000 Ib
83,000 lb
637,000 lb
Problem 5.6-1
COMPUTATIONS
T= 307 in. = 25.6 ft
Calculate the maximum moment in the pile

(STEP 17).
Compute actual T, L /T, and
find A and B from Figure 5.3-8. Then
"from Eouation'5-14
Mmax = (A1 + a Bl)Ph T'+MaB
35.
i1
Lp /T = 102 ft/25.6 ft = 3.98

A =.00.77
;.(P
Th =O0,CO0 lb)
T
Ma
=.(077 +10)(100,000 lb)(307 in.) + 0
Ma
max
=2.36xi10
"36.
Calculate the maximum steel stresses in

tension and compression (STEP 18) and
check if they are below f , the maximum
allowable stress. From EOuations 5-15 and
Pt = Tt = 50,000 lb
fmaxt =
5-16.
fmaxt = - P /Aps
f
= P!/A
in.-lb
- Mmax /S
50 000 lb
18i.6 in.
2.36 x 107 in.-lb

2,091 in.
-11,600 psi.
Compute f
for P = 0 (pile in tension),
and for pI-aCQ = 657,000 lb (at maximum
capacity)c
C
+ max/S
S=0.6
0 +2.36 x 107 in.-lb
2.091 in. 3
maxc
11,300 psi
flxc =637,000 Ib 2.36 x 107 in.-lb

maxc
1836 in
-
2,091 in.3
14,800 psi
Fy = 36,000 psi (given)

fa = (0.6)(36,000 psi) = 21,600 psi
YES; STEEL STRESSES, IN TENSION AND COMPRESSION
ARE BELOW THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE.
SUMMARY
1.
The anchor piles on-hand can be used 'for this mooring.
2.
The pile to be used has the following dimensions:

0 = 48 in.
ts = 1.25 in.
Lp = 102 ft
3.
The pile's axial capacity in compression is 637,000 lb.
4.
The maximum steel stress under the actual mooring load is 11,600 psi in tension and
11,300 psi in'compression.
The steel compressive stress at the pile's axial capacity
is 14.800 psi.
5-24
...
5.6.2
Problem 2--Pile Design in a Cohesionless
and
Soil
the seafloor.
is
5.6.2.1
anchor
Problem Statement:
pile
loads.
for specified
Also,
compression,
determine
and
the
Design
lateral
an
axial
uplift
loads up to 25,000 pounds at
(The pile sketch in Figure 5.6-1
the same for this problem.).
The soils data
at this site are not well known.
The soils have
and uplift
not been tested but are believed to be a cohe-
its axial capacity in
sionless silty sand of medium to dense relative
maximum
steel
stresses.
density.
The 24-
and 48-inch-diam steel piles
Can piles which are on-hand be used for this
(F
mooring?
are also available for this mooring.
AOL
= 36,000 psi)
Data:
The anchor pile is to be used for
the floating drydock mentioned in Problem 1, but
5.6.2.2
"the
of
several
Problem Solution:
wall
thicknesses
The trial-and-
Ose of the drydock is different and the

seafloor conditions are different. The drydock
error computational procedures for the problem's
is to be moored while not in use,
method presented in this chapter and outlined by
must
resist
lateral
solution are sumarized below.
but it again
loads up to 50,000 pounds
These follow the
the flow chart in Figure 5.3-1.
Problem 5.6-2
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE
1.
Determine soil properties (STEP 1),

y
and 0 (cohesionless soil). Because th
propeFties have not been measured,
must be estimated. Table 5.3-1.
"2.
'
COMPUTATIONS'
For a cohesionless sand of medium to dense

relative density
they
s
deg
.x35
Yb
60 pcf
or
6b5
Otermi'ne design loads at the seafloor

(STEP 2) (F. from Section 5.3.3).
Fs = 2.0 (for~a noncritical case where the

soils information is not well known)
Th
T
FFs x horizontal
T h = (2.0)(50,000
lb) = 100,000 lb
"Tt=
Fs x vertical load at the seafloor
Tt = (2.0)(25,000
lb)-= 50,000 lb
load at the seafioor
First, find a pile that will have sufficient lateral load capacity.
3.
.*
Select a trial pile size (STEP 4) (24- and

4P-in.-dta steel piles are available).
-.
at& on the piles are taken from pile
manufacturers' data.

thickhess.
0
24 In.
t1 = 0.5 in.
*-El
7.647 x 1010 in. 2 -lb
Aps a 36.9 In.2
S a 212.4 In. 3
4.
Select deflection criteria (STEP 5)

Section 5.3.4.
from
yM
(0.10)(24 In.)
2.4 in.
Ymax
, -25
'
Problem 5.6-2
COMPUTATIONS
5.
Determine the coefficient of subgrade

"reaction, nh (STEP 6) from Figure 5.3-2.
6.
Determine stiffness (STEP 7) from

"Equation 5-4.
nh = 13 pci
'7647
.6=7"
n.lb0.2
0.1010
10 0/in.
"
= 89.9 in.
13 /b/in.3
T= (EI)0.2
"7.
Say Lp
8.
Determine deflection coefficients (STEP9)

= L /T.
from Figure 5.3-4 and
z
max
3 T =3(89.9 in.) =270 in.
270 in.
89. i
Ay =2.7
-"
8y= 1.8
y
9.
Calculate the lateral load capacity

(STEP 10).
From Equation 5-5
Ph calc)
T3
h(calc)
ymax(EI)
A T
aB
(2-4 inn10.
11.
12.
in.)-'
in. '1b)
+ 0
Th = 100,000 lb
NO; Ph(calC)
Th
(STEP 11).
Ph(calc)"
1
101
= 94,000 lb
Is
(27(8.
hca)
10.
a = 0 (because load applied at seafloor)
Th?
THEREFORE,
THE PILE IS TOO SMALL.

(Try a longer pile. A pile with a larger
tc could aIso be tried.)'
Say Lp
Calculate the later 1 load capacity
nh and T remain the same
(STEP 10).
4 T = 4(89.9 in.)
360 in.
30 ft
From Equation 5-,
Zmax = Lp/T = 4
A = 2.4 (from Figure 5.3-4)
y
2
-lb)
1010 +in.
)(7647 x,n.)j
Ph(Calc) = (2.4 in.
(2.4)(89.9
U
,.x
13.
.,
Check lateral load gainst pile capacity
05lO,000 lb
Th = 100,000 lb
(STEP 11).
YES; Ph(calc) > Th

rTHEREFORE, THE PILE IS ADEQUATE FOR LATERAL
s Ph'calc"~ Th?
"LOAD.
Now, check the pile for its axial load'capacity.
5."
_______________________._
.526
Problem 5.6-2
COMPUTATIONS
14.
.-
<"
Calculate the average overburI.en pressure

at the pile midpoint (STEP 12). From
Equation 5-6,
.
.""
vo
15.
AM
= (60 pcf)(30' ft) = 900 psf
PVo
aD
Calculate the skin frictional resistance

per unit length of pile in tension and
compression (STEP 13). From Equation 5-7
k = 0.5 (for uplift resistance)

k = 0.7 (for compression)
fs = k pro tan (a - 5 deg)
In uplift:
(0.5)(900 psf) tan (350 - 50) = 260 psf
In compression:
fs= (0.7)(900 psf) tan (350 - 50)
""-A
16.
364 psf
check with Table 5.3-5 shows these fs values

are below the allowable limit.
As = n 0 Lp =p (r)(2 ft)(30 ft) = 188 ft
Qs = (188 ft 2 )(364 psi) = 68,000 It
Calculate the uplift capacity (STEP 14).
From Equation 59
Qs = A f
"17.
Is the pile capacity in uplift greater than

the uplift load? (STEP 14)
Tt = 50
00 lb
YES; Qs > Tt
THE PILE IS ADEQUATE FOR UPLIFT CAPACITY.
18.
Calculate the pile tip bearing capacity

"(STEP 15). From Equations 5-11 and 5-10,
Pro(tip) = pro @ 30 ft = (60 pcf)(30 it)
qp,
N = 12 (from Table 5.3-4)
=p
= 1,800 psf
(tip) N
A
qP = (1,800 psi)(12) = 21,600 psi
Ap = it 2 = -X.
= 3.14 ft
Q a3.14
(
ft )(21,600 psi) = 68,000 lb
V."
19.
Calculate the pile capacity in compression

(STEP 16). From Equation 5-13,
Qc = 68,000 lb * 60,000 lb = 136,000 lb
Qc aQs #QOP
C
u" ..
20.
As= 0.77
Calculate the maximum moment in the pile

(STEP 17). Obtain A from Figure 5.3-5.
Then from Equation 5914.
"'"x =(Am+
zm0
ON not needed
) Ph T + M&
P
'M
max
5.27
= T
100,000 lb
0.77 + 0(100.000 lb)(89.0 in.) + 0

6.92 x 10 in..-lb.
Problem 5.6-2
21.
Calculate the maximum steel stresses in

tension and Qmpression (STEP 18) and
check if th4, are below f , the maximum
allowable st ess. From E~uations 5-15
and 5-16
Fmaxt
"
ps Mmax /S
f
lIA
maxc
"fa
Pc/A0s
+M
max
C4PUTATIONS
Pt
f
maxt
.
-34,000
Compute f
6.92 x 106 in.-lb

212.4 in.)
psi
for P
and for placQ c = 6
0 (pile in tension),
lb (at the maximum
l7,000
capacity)c
0.6 F
maxc = 0
faxc
IF-
6.92212.4$
x 106in.'in.-lb = 32,600 psi
x 106in.in.-lb
36! i"7
3
lb + 6.92212.4
136000
= 36,300 psi
F = 36,000 psi
fa
06(36,000 psi)
21,600 psi
NO; STEEL STRESSES iN TENSION AND COMPRESSION

"ARE ABOVE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE. THIS PILE IS
I___TOO
22.
Try a larger size pile. Repeat the

calculations to see if the maximum steel
"stress falls below the allowable stresses.
SMALL.
Try a 24*in.-dias pile with a 0.75-in. wall

thickness.
A
= 54.78 in.2
PS
S = 308.8 in.
lb
50OO00 in.2
913/8
IF
maxt
,.
6
x 1O
6.9Z308.8
in.'in.-lb
= -23,300 psi
23.
"IFxmaxc
= 0
+ 692308.8
x 106in.3
in.-lb = 22,400 psi
"NO;
THESE
THIS PILE
STRESSES ARE STILL ABOVE THE MAXIMUM.

IS TOO SMALL.
Try
a 24-in.-dim pile with a 0.875-in. wall
thic:kness.
Try
a larger size pile. 'Repeat the
callculations.
Aps 2 63.6 in.Z

SSa 354.6 in.?
"
= .50
.mfxt
000 )b .6.92"x
63A6 in.-
10e In.-lb,
354. 6 in.J
= -20,300 psi
S354.6in.
fmaxc
3 -lb
0 + 6.92 x 106 in.
19,500 psi
(at the maximm axial capacity)

I'"
fxc
'136000
6.92 x 108in.in.-lb
Z
63.9; in.zlb, '354.6
- 21,600 psi
YES; STEEL STRESSES IN IUNSION AND COMPRESSION

ARE BELOW THE MAXIMUM'ALOWABLE.
__
5-28
Problem 5.6-2
COMPUTATIONS
"SUMMARY
1.
The anchor piles on-hand can be used for this mooring.
2.
The pile to be used has the following dimensions:

D
24 in.
"0.875 in.
Lp = 30 ft
5.7
3.
The pile's axial capacity in compression is 136,000 lb.
4.
The maximum steel stress under the actual mooring load is 20,300 psi in tension and
19,500 psi in compression. The steel compressive stress at the pile's axial capacity
"is 21,600 psi.
REFERENCES
5-6.
L.C.
Reese and W.R. Sullivan.
Documenta-
tion of computer program COM624, parts I and I1,

Analysis of stresses and deflections
for
laterally-loaded piles including generation of
p-y curves, Geotechnical Engineering Center,
University of Texas at Austin. Austin, Tax.,
Aug 1980.
5-1. R.J. Taylor. 0. Jones, and R.M. Beard.

Handbook for' uplift-resisting anchors, Civil
Engineering Laboratory.
Sep 1975.
5-2. H. Matlock and
L.C. Reese.
"Nondimensional
solutions for laterally loaded
piles, with soil modulus assumed proportionate
5-7. H.L. Gill and K.R. Demars. Displacement

of laterally loaded structures in nonlinearly
to depth," in Proceedings' of the Eighth Texas

Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
responsive soil, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Technical Report R-670.

Port Hueneme,
Engineering, Bureau of Engineering Research,

University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.,
'1956. (Special Publication No. 29)
Calif, Apr 1970.

5-8.
I.W.
"5-3.
Farmer. Engineering properties of

London, England, E. and F.M. Span Ltd.,
1968, p. 57.
5-4. K. Terzaghi.
"Evaluation of coefficients
of subgrade reaction," Geotechnique,
vol 5,
5-9. G.G. Goble and F.' Rausch. Wave equation

analysis
of
pile driving - WEAP. program,
vols 1-4, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department' of
Transportation,
FIHA-IP-14.
Washington, D.C., 1976.
rocks.
G.G. Meyerhoff and J.I. Adams.'

"The
ultimate
uplift capacity of foundations,"
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol 5, no. 4, Nov
1968, pp 225-244.
no. 4, 1955, pp 297-326.

5-10'.
5-5. H. Matlock and T.A. Haliburton. A program
for finite-elem t solution of beam-columns on
nonlinear supports, University of Texas at
Austin, 81MCOL68. Austin, Tax., 1964,
T.J.
Hirsch,
L. Carr,
and L.L.' Lowery,
Jr. Pile driving analysis - V'ave equation users

manual TTI program, vols 1-4, Federal Highway
Aftiftistraticn, U.S. Department of Transportation,
F14A-IP-13.
Washington,
D.C.,
1976.
&.29
5.8
SYMBOLS
Distance of pile load attachment point

above the seafloor for foundation
piles ELl
Am
Lp
Length of pile EL"
Lr
Lr
Length of pile embedded in rock EL)
Ma
Mmax
Design applied moment [LF]
NC
Maximum bending moment in pile ELF]
Nondimensional moment coefficient
,ax
Gross end area of pile EL ]
Aps
Cross-sectional area of pile [L 2 )
As
Surface area of pile below seafloor
nh
Coefficient of subgrade soil reaction
A
y
8
Nondimensional deflection coefficient
OC
Overconsolidated
Nondimensional moment coefficient
P
c
Design vertical compressive load at

the foundation pile EF],
*y
'Nondimensional deflection coefficient

SI
Minimum perimeter transmitting uplift
load [(]
P '
c
Ph
P [F]
c
Design horizontal load at the
foundation pile (F)
f.
Nq,
EL2)
Cp
Pile width or diameter EL]

Characteristic mooring line size EL)P
Modulus of elasticity of pile EF/L
Eh
Maximum rated energy of hammer ELF]
Sti~ffness
Fcb
Horizontal component of mooring line

bearing resistance (lateral force
exerted by mooring line on the soil)
[F-
Factor of safety
F
Y
Minimum yield 2 point of the pile

material (F/L ]
Pt
Pt corrected for effects on loading of

a pile being driven below the seafloor
[F]
(,
Effective vertical stress in soil
[F/Li]
Pt
Pvo
Pile capacity in compression (F)

c
Qp
'
fmaxt
Design vertical uplift load at the

foundation pile (F]
F FcorofsfeyQc
f
a
Ph corrected for effects on loading of

a pile being driven below the
seafloor [F]
(.F.
Lateral load capacity of the trial
pile [F]
El
P(calc)
h
2
Sand and a special case sand/chain

dimensionless bearing capacity factors
EF/L 3 ]
h'
Relative density [el]o

Redlativ denastity
Dr
SD
N
q
Soil bearing capacity fur the pile

tip [F)
Allowable stress in pile material

[F/L']
QFrictional
Maximum applied compressive stress in
2
mac pile (F/I
]
resistance of pile [F]

Unit soil bearing capacIty of the pile
tip (F/12]
qp(max)
Maximum applied tensile stress in
2
mat pile (F/L
]
-[
Maximum allowable q. from Table 5:3-5
C/2
Unit skin resistance along pile shaft

sF/LZ]
Ra
S
Uplift capacity of rock anchor (F]
fs(max)
Maxiu allowable unit skin friction

[F/2]
sb
Moment of inertia of pile [L4]
Bond strength of grout to pile, or

grout shear strength, whichever is
less [F/L])
K
1
= n1hD/s
for clay
Compressive strength of rock (F/L]
sU
Soil undrained shear strength (F/L
SU(Z)
Soil undrained shear strength at
nondimensional coefficient
Coefficient of lateral earth pressure

Effective length of pile bearing on
rock I]
Section modulus of pile CLS]
,
]
,F/IZ]depth z
5*30
Relative stiffness of pile-soil

system [L],
Ymx
Maximum allowable lateral pile

deflection EL]
Th
Design horizontal load at anchor.
z
zc
Th'
Th
corrected for the effects on
loading of a pile being driven below
Depth below seafloor EL]

Depth of pile connection
below
seafloor EL]
Maximu.
of the dt
oeffiien
zD
Oepth of pile head below seafloor [L]
Zr
Thickness of rock layer [L]

Thickness of soil over rock [L]
pile (F]
h,,oor
Design vertical load at anchor

pile (F].
Tt
T corrected for the effects,on

""lading of a pile being driven below
the seafloor
.-"t
Wall
Wl
Zs
Yb
thickness of pile EIl
spw
LDrained
(effective) friction angle

8
Lateral pile deflection [L]
5.
5.31
...........................
3
Buoyant unit weight of soil [F/L ]
Friction angle for sand against pile
Chapter 6
DIRECT-EMBEDM4ENT ANCHORS
6.1
-'.-
(2) their resistance to nonhorizontal loading,

which permits short mooring line sccpes and
INTRODUCTION
6.1.1 Purpose
tighter moorings.
This chapter details procedures and considerations for use of direct-embedment anchors.
6.2
It deals primarily with plate-type anchors,

specifically the propellant-driven type used by
the Navy. Flexibility in use of these anchors
is restricted by the very few sizes available.
The "design" is really selection of an adequately sized gun and plate anchor, and the
calculation of the expected capacity for a set
of expected soil and loading conditions.
"
.L,
6.1.2
Function
Most direct-embedment anchors are installed

by inserting the anchor member vertically into
the seafloor and then expanding or re-orienting
this anchor member to increase its pullout
"resistance., Direct-embedment anchor types ,,re
described in Section 6.2.
6.
Fte
"-6.1.3 Features
"The
'-2
6.2.1
OIRECT-EMBEDMENT
ANCHOR
AND
TYPES
SIZES
Propellant-Driven Anchor
Propellant-driven embedment anchors have

been developcd by the Navy for both deep and
This anchor type uses-a
shallow water uses.
fluke which is fired into the seafloor by a gun
barrel.
It has the significant advantage of
instantaneous embedment on seafloor contact. In
these propellant-embedded
deep water uses,
anchors do not need a support stand during
installation, can be installed without difficulty on moderate slopes, and do not require the
deployment vessel to maintain station 'for long
periods as with vibratory- or impact-driven
systems.
The process of propellant-embedded'
in
illustrated
installation
is
anchor
Figure 6.2-1.
After
firing
on
touchdown
(step 1), the anchor penetrates and comes to
rest deep within the soil mass (step 2). When a
five major types of direct-embedment

vibratoryanchors
are:
propellant-driven,
driven, impact-driven, jetted-in, and augered-in
anchors.
Features of direct-embedment anchors are
load is applied to the- motiring line (step 3),

the anchor keys or rotates into a position of'
maximum resistance to further displacement
(step 4).
Several propellant-embedded anchor Systems
summarized in Chapter 1. The more significant

advantages of the direct-embedment anchors are:
More detailed
are described in Table 6.2-1.
information, including photographs and drawings
(1) their very high holding-capacity-to-weight

ratio (100:1 for propellant-embedded types) and
systems
!isted in
describing
the anchor
Table 6.2-1, can. be found in' References 6-2
7'\.
\'4**
""I.
--
.*
' * *b *-
* - - , .
- -
'
. .--
1. Touchdown 2. Anchor
(firing)
penetration
3. Anchor
keying
4. Anchorage established
Zpt
Figure 6.2-1. Installation sequence for a propellantembedment anchor.
through 6-5.
The Navy systems, are further
described in Table 6.2-2 for a preliminary
design of mooring systems. The fluke dimensions
listed represent an optimized balance o'fgundeliverable energy and anchor fluke mass,, end
area, and bearing area.
Figure 6.2-2 illustrates components of a propellant-embedded
Figure 6.2-3 illustrates typical' coral and rock

flukes.
Both A/S Raufoss Anmunisjonsfabrlkker of
Norway and Ametek Offshore of Santa Barbara,
Calif., have beeun licensed to market the Navy
systems' commercially.
Raufoss has installed
100K anchors as elements of a permanent mooring
anchor
system in the North Sea.
system with
sand
and
clay
flukes.
6-2-
Table 5.2-1.' Propellant-Driven Embedment Anchors.

for Ocean Use [after Ref 6-1]
ML
Measured or
Nomial
esign
C aiy
N
Operatioanal
Depth
(kp)Water
(ft)
Anchr
Estimated Holding
Capacity
(kips)
a
Sand
Clay
Coral
SNCEL,
Port Hueneme, Calif.
Navy 10K
10
25-20,000
Navy 20K
20
50 c 20 ,000
Navy 10OX
100
35-20,000
SUPSALV lOOK
100
Navy
35c-700c
300
300 K9
U.S. Army Mobility

Equipment R&D Center,
Fort flelvoir, Va.
XM-50
50-20,000
50so
130
R
15
35b
60
35
35 d
250
150
250
15O 0
600
450
10
l IO7h
5
A/SI Raufoss
Amunlsjonsfabrikker,
Norway
REA 250Th
100
ISO18
701
aAverage for soft clays found in ocean basins.
"Average of 10
""'as been used
tests in coral with an unconfined strength of 4.2 ksi.

at this water depth.
dAverage of 10 tests in caral with an unconfined strength of 3.4 ksl.

Average'of 22-tests in cat-at with an unkhown unconfined strength.
Average of 6 tests in coral with an unconfined strength of
1.5-2.5 ks0.
.............................................
*.50.**1.10e
co isunder development; capacities are estimated.
"hAverage of
2 tests in coral of unknown unconfined strength.
63
Table 6.2-2.
Parameters for Navy Propellant-Embedded Anchors

(Data After Ref 6-1 through 6-6)
Anchor Type
Anchor System Characteristics
Length, gun with fluke, ft
Diameter or width, ft
Nominal weight, in air, lb
Operating water depth, ft
Nominal holding capacity, lb
Fluke velocity, fps
Fluke Dimensions
Sand, length x width, ft
bearing area, ft2
weight in air, lb
Clay,-iength x width, ft
bearing area, ft 2
weight in air, lb
Coral, length x width, ft
Esti. -ted Penetration. ft
Clay Flukes
Soft basin soil (silty-clay)
Distal turbidite (low s )
Distal turbidite (high Vu)
Proximal turbidite
Calcareous ooze (deep water)
Coarse .alcareous ooze (low s,,)
Coarse calcareous ooze (high ;U)
Siliceous ooze
Pelagic clay (low s )
Pelagic clay (high Vu)
Sand Flukes
Loose sand
=30 deg, y = 110 pcf)
Medium dense sana
(# = 35 deg. yt = 120 pcf)
Dense iand
(=
40 deg. t * 130 pcf)
Coralb
Coa
1OK
20K
6.5
2.0
650
25-20,000
10,000
370-390
9.0
3.5
2,000'
50-20,000
20.000
360-460
2 x 1
1.9
160
2 x 2
3.7
185
2 x 1
3 x 2
5.5
290
3 x 3
8.5
420
3 x 1.5
5 x 2.5
11.0
1,300
6 x 4
28. 0
2,100
5 x 2, or
6 x 3.2
25
19
19
17
27
25
19
30
33
27
35
27
26
23
39
35
27
43
47
37
12
JOOK
100K
12.0
13.0
6.0
8.0
7,006
14,000
35-20,06: 0 25-500
100,000
100,000
380-500
380-500
"
15.0
8.0
18,000
50-20.000
300,000
380-520
5.5 x 2.8
13.0
6.7 x 3.3
22.0
1,900
6.7 x 3.3
1x 4
24
4,000
8 x 7
56
6,80
a
52
43
39
33
60
54
42
65
68
52
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
64
57
49
41
72,
63
50
79
81
63
17
2S
a,
30
11
16
23
.27
10
15
21
25
10-37
8-35'
2-7
I2L
3-12
-,
aEstimated parameters for anchor under development.

bNo experience.
CAt Diego Garcia, Argus Island,
"
Bar'stur Range, Barking Sands, and Barbers Piint.
,,;..-..
""-4i 11
1 "
safe-and-Mn
device
Assembly
33t
oft
'LI
Ivend
2.Oft
"
"'
'
Iuke
(aLAsM
afluk
ritaction
u'n
1
><
ud
.e -- o:
F(igowd
fluke
send
fluke
po63Cron)
"touchdownprobe
Figure 6.2-2. NCEL 10K propellant-embedment anchor

showing send and clay flukes.
3 f
Hawaii (fomwRefrobe
HiwsMJ (frorn Re( 6-1)
"-'.
'
Figure 6.2-3. Coral and rock flukes for NCEL iropellant-embedrnent anchor systems (from'Ref 6-23),
--.-...
6..
6.2.2
Vibratory-Driven Anchors
required for proper fluke embedment,
typically
"15
"
Vibratory-driven
embedment anchors have
been developed, but have not seen wide use.
The
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory (NCEL) devel-
**
oped and tested an experimental, battery-powered

variation of this anchor for water depths to
6,000 feet [Ref 6-2, 6-7].

device was
dropped as
Further use of this

propellant-embedment
anchors
Another
were
developed
by
Rockville,
and
has
is
and
6.2.3
depth
Holding
anchors,
capacity,
of
are approximately
25 kips in soft,
40 kips
for
Two hammer-driven
used for seafloor anchorage:
types
have been.
the Navy umbrella
pile anchor [Ref 6-2,

6-9] and the Menard
rotating plate anchor [Ref 6-2] [Figure 6.2-4].
Both are limited in water depth by the available
pile-driving and pile-follower equipment and
both
in sand and
both
normally consolidated clays to
require
expensive
for installation.
clayey silts. A disadvantage of the vibratorydriven systems is the prolonged time period
*"
types of impact- or hammer-driven
which expand or rotate to achieve high

have been developed as land anchors
[Ref 6-8].
a counterrotating
capacities
Impact-Oriven Anchors
Various
was
Engineering,
water
usually requiring use of a
multi-point mooring system.
powered from the surface

operating
motors that drive
vibrator.
systems
It
maximum
Science
system
during installation,
[Ref 6-2].
This depth limitation is
by power losses in the lines to the
hydraulic
mass
Ocean
Md.
a
500 feet
dictated
developed.
to 30 minutes.
The handling platform must
maintain its position directly over the anchor
pile-driving
equipment
Holding capacities range from
100 kips in clay to 300 kips in sand.
i:i
mud line
ii.
driving !
mawwrel
""Intermen
pt
puU~oas test
unlocked
poairon
opening
postion
In-awkce
position
(a)Mark IV Umbrefl Pik,-Anchor (frqm Re( 6.10)
(b) Menad Rotating Plate Anchor (from Ref 6-11)
Figure 6,24. Impa-drien randChM.
~.
and cobble soils, penetration by jetting will

likely be very slow and uneconomical.
Jetted-In Anchors
'6.2.4
Jetted-in anchors are buried through water

jet
disturbance of the
soil.
This allows the
6.2.5
Auger Anchors
anchor to be placed or to be more easily pushed

'.'
into
the
seafloor.
holding
capacity
anchors
of 1 to
These
from
systems
range
Auger
in
diver-installed
small,
anchors
are
screw-shaped
shafts
installed under high torque and some vertical
(Ref 6-12] to larger
load.
They have been used for anchoring pipe-
systems of 150 kips and greater [Ref 6-11,,6-13]
lines
on
[Figure 6.2-5].
function pri-
anchors are installed in pairs, one on each side
marily in sands that are easily liquefied by the
of the pipeline at the same time to provide a
water
lots.
stopped,
10 kips
Jetted
After
anchors
the
jetting
action
dense condition over the anchor plate.
"tion in
is
torque
the liquefied sands return to a more
undisturbed material.
In hard clays and shell
.-. p z
---
at
much weaker than the
is
reaction
[Ref 6-2].
for each
in supplying power,
and
the resulting backfill
seafloor
Normally,
other.
Operational
water depth is limited primarily by difficulties
Penetra-
clays is not as easily accomplished,
the
the
seafloor.
usually, by hydraulic hoses,

The
experience
limit
approximately 500 feet.
t-
water i
, l--I for bridle
pulling line
i
undktusbed
I-
A
ai ijecion
hawfor bridle
Pointwate
inlet
cemenit
line'
Seabed t2
-e
JOplate
- ..
tle
mimadurbed
clay
bolted to
anchorA
(a) ldopl anchor
(b) Royal Dutch Shell Jetted anchor for

nod and clay miloors.
Figure 6.2-5. Jettecdln anchors Jafter Ref 6-11).
.............................
6.7
is
6.3 SITE DATA NEEDED
over the wide area by a 3.5-kHz acoustic profil-
"
6.3.1
ing system. In areas of large relief, such as

areas of outcropping rock, erosion, or slumping
.
.
-
Figure 6.3-1 presents an outline of steps

in the selection of an adequate direct-embedment
anchor size for a given set of loading and site
conditions. The first steps are the collection
,of adequate site data.
features, a deep tow profiling system may be

necessary to obtain an accurate picture of
seafloor topography and distribution of sediment
infill between the relief features.
The results of the acoustic surveys should
be used during the exploratory program to posi-
Use of a direct-embedment anchor requires

sediment properties over the possible depth of penetration of the anchor fluke,
tion caring locations so that:

(1) the core
samples will provide data representative of the
probable anchor locations and (2) the potential
SlMaxima
penetration depth, keying distance, and

holding capacity under the specific conditions
of apolied loadings must be calculated from
these properties.
With adequate site data, a
direct-embedment anchor sufficient for existing
soil and loading conditions can be selected.
6.3.2
for lost time and damage to coring equipment is

minimized. Core samples and in-situ tests (see
Chapters 2 and 3) are used primarily to identify
soil type accurately and to determine soil
engineering property data. They also provide a
necessary control and calibration for interpretation of the acoustic data.
Some of the specific site survey informa-
General
"knowledge. of
Preliminary Penetration Estimate
"Inmany cases some preliminary data are

"available on the general seafloor environment to
.
permit identification of the probable sediment

type (see Chapter 2 for sediment data sources),
Knowledge of a probable sediment type allows
estimation of probable anchor penetration depth
"(see Chapter 8 and estimates for penetration of
specific
propellant-embedded
anchors
in
Table 6.2-2). These estimates of soil type and
penetration depth guide selection of site survey
and sampling equipment.
6.3.3
Topography. Strata Thicknesses, Type
In nonhomogeneous suils; strata material

type and thickness must be determined.
The
tion required for selecting propellant-embedded

anchors whether critical or noncritical mooring
uses are the same:
seafloor material type,
layer thickness, and depth to rock.
Where
consequences of a single anchor failure are not
severe (noncritical applications), a lower level
of data on sediment type and thicknesses my be
sufficient for anchor selection.
Geotechnical
properties may then be estimated from, soil
property profiles (Chapter 2) to make a rough
estimate of capacity in lieu of accurate sitespecific data..
For propellant anchors in critical moorings, where the consequences of a single mooring
failure are severe, data from in-situ tests and
good quality soil cores are required.
seafloor material type and approximate consis-
6.3.4 Engineering Properties
tency must be known in order to select the

aorropriate anchor fluke type (I,e., clay, sand,,
coral,.or rock fluke). The thicknesses of the
sediment strata must be known to ensure that the
To make accurate predictions of fluke

penetration and holding capacity', several soil
engineering properties must be known. These are
'
anchor fluke has sufficient sediment thickness

to develop the design capacity. These data are
best obtained over a wide area through acoustic
subbottom profiling and coring (see Chapter 2).
Seafloor topography, surficial sediment layer
thicknesses, and depth to rock 'are best measured
sensitivity, natural watuer contecit, bulk denstity, grain size, carbonate content, origin and
history, permeability,
and shear strength
(drained and undrained).
Where dynamic loads
are significant,, other; more specialized tests
on core samples may be necessary. At least one
*
*
,o..
LEVE OFYSITE~l
6-I)I~O~RH
6
C IT
-- WALLMTCOUIUNSA1
IO
(SECTIO 6.3)
P.4
KIU UTPY
TAI,67
(SECTION6.35)1
CAPACEISTY CPC
V.CAACY
IAACT
*
FACTg
)UC'IOR
F~ToPACTOS
OR
)SCCi U
~(CI A
Ig~ ~.3.1.
Flow chart fAT
psklg.hldn
AN~.ANCHor.S
SCIR
FACTOR
(CT
FACTO
aaiyo
ON69'E
VPO
-w;A~L
good quality sediment core is required to deter-
"mine these
is
properties.
required.
on
mooring
For
a
In many cases,
for a
example,
large
a 4-
"variability over
where
However,
deep water
abyssal plain, sediment

to 5-mile diameter of the
mooring area may not be great.

suffice.
only one
the
Soil
extend
depth.
the
depth
of
survey below
sampling
Complicating or Hazardous Conditions
6.3.5
required
depth
different
Navy
anchors used under various soil conditions.
The
on experience
Long, heavy corers and specialized handling

to penetrate and recover
from the deeper soil
smaller corers,
well
depths.
function
systems
of seafloor conditions.
in. a wide range
nonfunctional.
Extreme
soil
conditions
such as very hard or very soft seafloors complicate
However,^
making
of
survey,
which achieve penetrations
anchor
They can be adapted to function well where drag

anchors and pile anchors are inefficient and
even
range is considerablesystems are required
Direct-embedment
depth of the fluke.

this
cores
Expendable,
depth.
necessary
penetrometers can provide additional data where

longer coring is not possible and can thus
consis-
with
Table 6.2-2 suggests what

based
the
to
cores should be obtained over the
full estimated penetration
is,
similar, and the soil property profile would be

extended
One core should

sediment
tency or type may vary across the mooring site,

cores should be obtained at each anchor location.
below this sampled depth may be assumed to be
the
use
special
of
direct-embedment
efforts
positioning,
necessary
design,
anchors,
during
site
installation,
proof-loading.
used to obtain the sediment and define the upper
cating conditions and describes their impact on
portion
af the
geotechnical
property profile.
With the guidance of geophysical data, sediments

Table 6.3-1.
anchor
direct-eebent
performance.
Seafloor Condition.
Pottntial Complication
9 Glacial erratics or residual

surficial gravel and cobbles.
e Nodule or pavement formations
(usually manganese) over so'l.
e Submarine lava flows.
* Soil thickness not sufficient to develop fluke capacity, but

sufficient to consume most of fluke kinetic energy before it
reaches stronger layer.
a Damages flukes and limits penetration into underlying sands and
hard clays.
e Same as above.
e Extremely irregular and complex. Brittle rock, often fractured,
sometimes as "pillows" (i.e.. bulbous discrete or welded forms
3 to 6 it in diameter). To ensure reliability, anchors must be
proof-tested to full load.
Sloping Seafloor
* Anchor may affect slope stability (see Table 6.7-1), but
Soil slopes over 10 deg.
"eHard
direct-embedment anchor will suffer loss than most other anchor

types on sloping soils.
soil or rock scarps or Cliffs.
Scour
o Sand waves.
a Improper embedment from deflection or ricochet of fluke.
o Sand waves can be large and move rapidly, remoding significant

"overburden from a shallowly embedded plate anchor.
5ensitive. Soft Soils

. Clean calcareous ooze in deep ocean.
e Siliceous ooze (deep ocean).
e Other cohesive soil with sensitivity
of 6 or greater.
0 fluke installation can remold and weakin soil, limiting

developed holding capacity.
a Same as above.
e Same as above.
e Weak, high-void-ratio clays with s /p. e Long-term capacity my be lower than short-term.
u 0
"of 0.10-0.15.
-7.10
.,
. .
. ..
...
The
approach to most of these is to avoid the area
Conditions Complicating or Hazardous to 0irect-Embedment Anchor Use
Hard Strata
" Thin soil layer over rock, or thin
"softclay layer over sand.
..
and
Table 6.3-1 lists some compli-
10 feet in sands and 30 feet in clays, are often
. .,p.
. ....
.. .....
..
by relocating the plate anchor so the problem is
e Prediction of penetration for anchor flukes

installed, by other than propellant embedment
'is not presented in this handbook.
not acute or to select a different anchor

system--one less sensitive to the problem (e.g.,
using gravity anchors when on rock).
6.3.6
A technique for predicting penetration of

in
flukes
is
given
vibratory-driven
.Reference 6-2.
calculating
hamer energies
0 Methods
for cacltn
hamrergs
"required to penetrate plate anchors with
followers (considered a type of pile) are
*
Specialized Survey Tools
rwo specialized site survey tools have been
Twoste
pecalizd
urve tols hve eengiven
in Reference 6-16 and Chapter 5.
developed that can support the siting, design,

''and installation of the Navy's propellant-
The penetration depth of jetted-in anchors is

limited primarily by the occurrence of hard
layers in the soil profile, which stop or
fiapede the jet erosion process.
embedded anchors.
One, the expendable Doppler

penetrometer (Ref 6-14], indirectly measures the
""
undrained
shear
strength
of
Chapter 2, Section 2..2.5).
the
soil
(see
a The power required for penetration of screw
Although strength is
anchors requires an evaluation of the fluke,

characteristics and soil frictional resistance in-order to estimate required installation power.
not determined to the level of 3ccuracy as that

from in-situ measurement or coring, the method
requires
"'
becomes
very little on-site ship time and'

more cost-effective as water depth
increases.
The second device,
the Pinger probe,
6.4.2
is a
As illustrated in Figure 6.2-1, the anchor

a certain distance as it
fluke moves upwr
pward
3.5-kHz battery-powered sound source.' It can be

"used with a propellant-embedded anchor system to
assist positioning the anchor in complex seafloor conditions [Ref 6-1S].
rotates Into a horizontal orientation--the position of maximum holding capacity. This keying
The Pinger probe
distance,
soil
is attached to the anchor system's lowering line

about 100 feet above the anchor.
The probe
a seabed profile until a location is found

chances for successful installa-
:--.
a function of fluke geometry,,

sensitivity,
about 1.5 fluke lengths

Thus, given the 'initial
tton.
and duration
of
in coheslonless soils.
fluke penetration, the
keyed depth for a Navy anchor fluke is estimated

as follows:
"Incohesive
FLUKE PENETRATION AND KEYING
=4p
Z
6.4.1
is
soil
However,
experience has shown that the Navy's propellantembedded anchor 'flukes keys in about 2.0 fluke
lengths when embedded in cohesive soil and in
"that maximizes
6.4
6
Zk,
type,
time bitween penetration and keying.
provides a high quality, real-time image of

subbottom seabed stratification.
The installation vessel then maneuvers the anchor system
S'Over
Keying Prediction
Penetration Prediction
Includes
'Table 6.2-1
soil,
2 H
(6-1).
In coheslonless soil,
estimates
of
e
e
of
S4Cpropellant-embedded fluke penetrations for
generalized classifications of surflcial soils.
z'
- 1.5 H
(6-2)
where:
These estimates can be refined for established
"profiles of
".
(._
undrained
soil strength and other
anchor fluke dimensions,

mess,
and initial
velocity by applyim- the predictive techniques
Although no recommendation
the above estimate for z,
of Chapter 8.
keying distance may be longer in highly sensi-
The following are pertinent to a
discussion of penetration prediction:

-.
z = depth of the fluke after keying [L]

zp = maximumpenetration depth of fluke
N
[le
H'".= length of the fluke [L]
is made for altering

it
tive soils but may be shorter as more

elapses between penetrati~on and keying.,
...
S~~6.11.
"
*',
t
*_-*!A
.
..
-, *
o*
is believed that
,*,-
,..
..
.....
time
6.5
STATIC HOLDING CAPACITY
6.5.1
6.5.2
Loading Conditions
Static
loading
is a
relatively
Holding capacity
depends
on -the soil
failure mode, which is dependent on the anchor
plate embedment depth and on the soil type and
constant
lead maintained for a long period of time. This

is in contrast to dynamic loading, where thea
strength.
being
short length of time the load is
applied sig-
nificantly
Sthe affects anchor holding capacity.
Deep and Shallow Anchor Failure
Anchor failure
either
characterized
as
shallow or deep (illustrated
in
Figure 6.5-1).
In
is
A shallow failure occurs
when
reality, loadings on seafloor anchors are rarely
seabed surface is displaced by the upward

motion of the anchor plate and the soil failure
completely
surface continues
static
but
repetitive components.
levels
Lelow
certain
response will be as if
ly loaded.
often
have
impulse
or
However, at dynamic load

limits,
the
anchor-soil
'
the system were statical-
as
static
occurs' over more

clays
and
more
when
the
load
than 10 minutes
than
10 seconds
failure
the 'anchor
surface accompanying
does not reach
movement
the seabed
of
surface.
The transition from shallow to deep behavior has

relative ebd
o
foundation
bee
embedrelative
of
been found to be a function
sent depth (the ratio of embedment depth to
anchor
minimum
dimension,
z/B)
and
soil
loadings such as that caused by a

development
strength.
It occurs over 'a range of z/B values
in cohesive soil from 2 to 5 and in cohesionless
duration
s1
soil from 2 to 10 [Ref 6-18].
in
-C
sufficiently deep within the seabed so that the

soil
For cyclic repetitive loading such
short tug on a mooring line, the loading can be

treated
deep failure is present when the anchor plate is
as that caused by wav:e effects, the loading can

be approximated as static if the change in load
is less than 5% of the static load component.
For impulse
up to the seabed surface.
A.
,e.
..
in sands and
coarse silts [Ref 6-11, 6-17].
-7-----------
4qmc
I
%
sodail ur
Surface
Shallow anchor failure
amchor failure
'Deep
Figure 6.5.1. Failure moder for .hallow and deep embedded plate a.'hom"
6"12
'.
'
....
B = plate minimum dimension,

width (L]
L = plate maximum dimension,
length [L]
Short-Term Capacity in Cohesive Soils
6.5.3
exists when
short-term condition
The
anchor-caused
soil
failure
is
governed
soil's undrained shear strength.

short-term condition
drainage
of
pore
full
by
can
Failure in the
take
place.
The value of the holding capacity factor,

Ncs,
It
Fst
:FtA
where:
su
Plate anchor short-term
In some instances,
projected maximu
(6-3)may
63
O.1(BL]
fluke area
For the deep
Ncs
from Figure 6.5-2
be too high for the existing conditions. If

drainage vents or tubes allow water to flow
plate will be relieved.

If this happens, the
-value of N
should be reduced to that for the
cs
long-term
factor,
NC. from
F g r
. -holding
R f 6 capacity
1]
Figure 6.5-3 [Ref 6-18].
Ncs = short-term holding capacity factor
in cohesive soil
20
rN
10
Q-6
*10
0
..
I.
lI
._I_
_______mm
a0
Relative Embedment Depth. 1B5

Figure 6.5-2. Short-term holding capacity factons for cohoiW soil wh we full sucion develops
Iuwath the pla",
to...
'
6.13
then, the suction formed on the underside of the
direction of
perpendicular
Soil undrained shear strength
(F/LZ]
h = correction factor for soil
disturbance
due to penetration and
key
ing
/1,
is
rapidly to the underside of the plate anchor,
su
Iz
It
failure mode, Nc = 15. The disturbance correccs

tion is explained in Section 6.5.6.
is:
hh s[O.84 *
obtained from Figure 6.5-2.
and the relative embedment depth.
holding capacity under static loading conditions

in cohesive soils, Fst,
is
function of the soil's undrained shear strength
or within a few minutes, of
load application.
usually
occurs before significant
water
occurs immediately,
the
usually
,*
.4
41
.
"0
"
I.
.10
a.
iC
Relative Embedment Depch. Z/B
~Figure
',.
6.5-3. Long-term holding capamcity factors and short-term, no-suction factors for
cohesive soils.
-6.5.4 Long-lTem Capac ity-in Cohesive Soils
The
Ssufficiently
long-term
condition
exists
and maximum Flt=, Fst (the
when
static load is applied to the anchor over a time

long to allow near-complete dissipat~ion
pore water pressures.
initiating a failure).
,..
The factorHN is obtained from Figure 6.5-3

and the factor Nqfrom Figure 6.5-4.
time duration may be a day for silts, a week for

silty clays, and considerably longer for clays.
such as delta muds, the shear failure mode m-ay

be differrent than with normally consoliditad
In cohesive soils,. the long-term holding capac-
sediments..
ity is governed by the effective soil drained

strength
parameters:
the drained cohesion
brief discussion of underconso'lidated soils.

This 'conditionr can ,result in a lower holding
intercept, c; and the drained friction angle, .
capacity
The long-term static holding capacity,
tion 6-4.
Flt
is:
holding
!olng-term holding capacity factor

in cohesive soil
'
than
The
would
be
reduced
calculated
holding
by
Equa--.::
capacities
in
Figures '6.5-3 and 6.5-4 to obtain the

capacity factors.
The new and
2/(-)
T
:buoyant unit weight of the soil\c.

[ F/ L 3]
=holding capacity factor for a
Nqdrained soil condi-tion.
'
6-14
-.
""
",
-.
values are calculated as follows:
,c= drained soil cohesion [F/L2]
Yb
-..
Section 3.5.2 of Chapter 3. gives a
these very soft soilst can be conservatively

predicted by reducing the Z and j values before
01(/)
FN)08
A(2 ic +, Ybz R [.4+01(/
'entering
,...
.
.(-4)
Nc
'-
For very soft underconsol idated sediments,'
where:
excess
applied long-term
load cannot exceed the short-term load without
This
Flt'
of
, '
""
c(65
ar
c\
rtntn)(6-6)
ta (-'a
100
80
r,.,.."
'
,.
;
60
40
..:.-.
=-40 deg
"
.30 deg
0,
-20 deg .-
~25
deg--,
II
ll
6810
12
14
Relative Embedment Depth. z /B
Figure 6.5-4. ,Holdinj capacity factors for cohesionless soils.
6.5.5
.
Short- and Long-Term Capacity in

Cohesionless Soils
reduced in the same manner as for the drained

cohesive soil case (i.e.,
by Equation 6-6)
before Figure 6.5-4 is entered.
The short-term loading condition
in cohe-
sionless soils is also the drained or long-term

failure condition.
6.5.6
tually all of the excess pore water pressures
Equation 6-3 contains
a correction
factor
resulting from a static loading dissipate as the
for soil disturbance to correct for soil remold-
load is applied.
ing during fluke penetration and keying.
Thus,
for cohesionless soils,
Values
the soil failure is assumed to be drained for
for the factor, h,,were determined for the four
both
soil
static
short-
and
long-term
conditions,
The static holding capacity in'cohesionless

soils (sands
4.
Disturbance Corrections
In sands and gravels, vir-
and gravels)
for both short- and
long-term conditions, F, is:
types
listed
in
Table 6.5-1. by
anchor
tests.
These values are recommended for appli-
cation
to
similar
soil
propellant-embqdded
types
anchor
in, calculating
holding
capacity
(Ref 6-19].
A~a
F
-1.
[0.84
0.16(0/1)3
Sensitivity, St (the ratio of undisturbed

remolded shear strength), is an important
indicator of the amount of disturbance likely.
(6-7)
to
The holding, capacity factor A
is obtained from
For soils with considerably different St values
Figure 6.5-4 using the relative embedment depth
than those reported in Table 6.5-1, an estimate
and the soil friction angle.

When dealing with
very loose sands (i.e., relative density less
must be made for the h-value.

soils should display greater
than 40%),
the soil friction angle,
I,
should be
strength and be assigned a lower value of h.
%
S....
.- ;...'p.'h..
.... '.....
More sensitive
reductions
in
615
.%'
...
...
.............
- .
,......
.......
..
.......
.-..
.,.......
the subsequent report sections.

procedures presented in this
Values for Strength Reduction

Factor for Use in Equation 6-3
Table 6.5-1.
Sail Type
Strength
Reduction.,
Factor, h
Very soft, moderately sensitive,
0.8-0.9
The calculation
section
provide
rough but conservative estimates of the effect

of dynamic loadings on anchor capacity. A more
may
them
cause
is
in
given
Reference 6-20.
.
6.6.2
Soft, normally consolidated,

silty clay
08
Pelagic clay
s =3 1.2 psi,
Foraminiferal sand-silt, 77-86]
Farbonate
0.7
Cyclic Loading
.
6.6.2.1. Definitions.
Cyclic loading can
be considered an impulse loading that occurs in
a repetitive manner rather than as a single
event.
For design purposes cyclic loadings are
separated into three categories:
(1) cyclic
0.25
line loading of the anchor that may lead to a

soil strength loss in the vicinity of the anchor
u - 2.2 psi, St -10
and subsequent anchor failure;
(2)
cyclic line
loading that may cause anchor upward movement

Factors of Safety
The
factor
of
(creep),
safety
anchor holding, capacity
to
be
applied
determined
to
from Equao
which
could
accumulate
to
move
the
anchor into more shallow soil and thereby lower

its short-term static holding capacity; and
(3) earthquake-caused cyclic loading of the soil
tions 6-3, 6-4, and 6-7 varies with the type ard
mass
purpose of the
strength in the entire soil mass and a sudden
environmental
applications
soil
mooring and wo;.h the level

data
where
conditions
installations,
on
the
site.
little is
at the site,
For
of
those
known about
the
or for critical
a safety factor of 3 is
recoi-
When adequate site data permit a high
mended.
by
resulting
pure
loss
of
Cyclic loads are characterized
cyclic
Pc#
near-complete
"double-amplitude"
superimposed
static loading component, Ps.
on
loading
basically
Cyclic and static
load magnitudes are expressed as a percentage of

the
(as
be reduced to 2.
component,
level of design confidence, or when that mooring

the factor of safety may
with
anchor failure..
element is noncritical,
static
short-term anchor
determined
by
holding capacity
Equations 6-3
or
6-7).
Figure 6.6-1 illustrates this nomenclature with

an example where. P5 is approximately 18% of the
6.6
short-term holding capacity, P is approximately

33% of that capacity, and four load cycles occur
DYNAMIC HOLDING CAPACITY
within approximately 0.55 minute.

6.6.1
Loading Conditions
applied but of, short duration (less than

1 minute).
They are divided into two categories:.
(2)
(1)
cyclic or repetitive
than 5,%of the static short-term holding capacity.

Smaller cyclic loads are difficult to
measure
design.
loadings and
impulse loading (basically a single event),
Two additional
is
ity by changing the existing conditions in the
the
soil
needed
the
anchor.
These,
loading
typos are illustrated by the anchor line load

his~ory shown In Figure 6.6-1 and discussed in
or predict and can be,. ignored in the

parameters are required to
describe a cyclic loading condition.
Both types can alter plate anchor holding capacsurrounding
,.................
......-....
The first
the total number of load cycles expected in

anchor's
to
lifetime, nT.
evaluate
the
This parameter
potential
is
for anchti
creep.
The second i.s the number of cycles, nc.
that occurs in a limited time' period required
S616
.=................
In design, a
cyclic load must hive a double amplitude greater
Dynamic loads are defined as those rapidly
___
complete discussion on these loadings and what
clayey silt
su
1 psi, St - 3
6.5.7
-.
..
.-
...-,,,
.,.''.'.,,.-...,..,."
I/
lImpuilse
Loading
t:
Cyclic LoAding
~40
"0"
i"
""
i0
.o
for dissipation of excess pore pressure, tcd

The parameter n is used to evaluate soil
strength loss and potential for liquefaction.
For other soils, the susceptibility of a

given plate
anchor to cyclic-load-caused
strength reductions can be evaluated by estimating -the maximu, cyclic load that can be
sustained by the anchor without pore pressure
dissipation. This is dora using the soil perme-
6.6.2.2 Strength Loss.

Virtually
all
soils
are subject to some strength loss from
extended cyclic loading. The amount of strength
loss, however, varfes considerably depending on
ability, k, whose value must be determined frou

testing of undisturbed soil from the vicinity of
soil type, state, and the *nature of the cyclic
where
loading.'
soil's
In general,
the
lie in the
soil mass.
Table 6.6-1 shows typical values of k, which are
susceptibility to strength
loss:
a
a more plastic soil, a lower cyclic
used with Figure 6.6-2 to estimate tcd the time

required for dissipation of excess pore pres-
loading
"cycles,
the 'anchor will
following lower the
"denser soil,
magnitude,
a smaller
of
load
sures.
The maximum number of double-amplitude
and a longer time period over which the
number
cyclic
loadings that can occur within the tsime.
period
t cd
cycles occur.
Some
low
relative
density, cohesionless
expected
is estimated
loading
from
conditions.
the
known' or
Figure 6.6-3
is
the maximum value
of
soils are susceptible to complete liquefaction,
then used
Sediments of
cy,.ltc load, PC, that can be sustained without a'
this type
(such
as uniform
fine
to
determine
sands, coarse silts, and some clean deep-sea

oozes) can experience a near-total strength loss
significapt soi- strength loss.
under cycli loading.
the maximum number of cycles that can be sus-
Figure 6.6-3 can also be used to detenmine
Use of plate anchors in
these soils' is
-
cyc:ic loading is expected.
not recommended
if
tained without soil
significant
cyclic
load
strength
level.
loss for a given
The prediction
curves
of
6-17
. ................................
,,....,.....
IP i I- lP
........ ...., ,..............;

.... ......
"
-V!,
I.
...
....
Table 6.6-1.
Figure 6.6-3 apply where the av-~ e static load

is less than 33% of the anchor's static short-
Average Values of Soil

Permeability (after
Ref 6-20)
term holding capacity.

SoilTypePereabiityk
(fps)
1 x 10 -2
Uniform Coarse Sand
x o-Figure
Sad ediu
Unifrm
Unfom edumSad
X10above
1
I
1
When th~e average static
load is greater than 33% of the static holding

capacity, an adjustment must be made to the
using
before
st. C loads
The aiount of the 'static load
33) is added to the value of P .*
of PC is then used to determine
Well-Graded Clean Sand
3 x 10
and
6.6-3.
33% (PS This new value
Uniform Fine Sand
1x o
the maximum number of cycles from Figure 6.6-3.
Well-Graded Silty
(Dirty) Sand
1 x 10-
Uniform Silt
2 x 10-6
cyclic
6.6.2.3
Cyclic creep of an
X10above
iow Plasticity Cl ay
(Kao IliInite), PI < 20
3 x 10-8
evaluate cyclic creep potertial, the number and

magnitude of significart loading cycles occur-
Medium Plasticity Clay

(Illite), PI = 20-60
3 x 10~
ring during the lifetime of an anchor are the
High Plasticity Clay,

0-200a
PT =
Very High Plasticity Clay,
3 x 10-10
P1
>
controlling load factors.
3 x 10 1
The maximum nuliber of cyclic loads that can

occur over the lifetime of an anchor without
significant upward creep is shown by the curves
presented in Figure 6.6-4. These criteria are
applicable to cases where the average static
to.load,
...
10anchor,
load criterion is exceeded, the doublef-amplitude

cyclic load. PC. should be adjusted by- an amount
I
J
equal to that portion of P~ above 20% (i.e., by

For *xa~l*, if the '.tatic. load
PS - 20).
1 ~o101o
I
PS. is less than 20% of static-short-term

capacity. For cases where the 20% static
S
301
of a mooring is i8% of the static

s hort-term holding capacity, and the appropriate
curve on Figure 6.r-4 indicates an allowable
component
j
-jo
.10
maximum double-amplltude'ryclic load of 30% over

the lifetime of the structure. then that allow-'
toI
104able
101
This loading usually
must be summari,zed by statistical te~chniques, in

spectral or quasi-spectral format, to estimate
total number of uniform loading cycles that can
occur over t he' anchor's lifetime [Ref 6-20J.
200
embedment anchor can occur under loading conditions' that appear quite safe relative to the
To
criteria for cyclic strength loss.
SilyCay~
Cyclic Creep-
.:,
double-amplitude
cyclic
load should be
reduced by 8X (282 minus Z0%). Therefore, the

allowable cyclic load becomes 225 (30% minus
.This procedure is very conservative for
anchor lystems expected to have a long service
* 30
___________________,..
SW
k)f/aft8%).
p"I""ty.
life and be subjected to maw.j cycles of signifi-
Figure 6.6-2. Time required for dissipation of stress-
It was designed to be
cant cyclic loading
conservative because cyclic creep of anchors is
induced excess pore pressuire (after

Ref 6-20) .
not well-understood.
6-18
"6.6.2.4
above approaches
Note: These data apply to anchors with

an average saticload|leathan
33%of static short-term capacity.
.--soAf
recommended
for
with
the
aspects
anchor design.
It
of
soils
5 0
data
1an
noncritical
E U
MOi-
103
10
10
106
are
not well
installations
known
and 1.25
or where
for'
the soils
In contrast to line-applied cyclic' loading

anchor, earthquakes
The
mass.
Fig -e 6.6-3. Maximum cyclic load capacity without

soil strengthloss(after Ref6-20).
some
loading,
load the entire soil
lowever,
occurs
for only
10 to 30 significant and rapidly applied'
loading cycles.
Cohesive soils and most medium
to dense sands (materials that are less susceptible to liquefaction) subjected to such loading
outlined in
are treated by the techniques
Section 6.6.2.
Relatively clean cohesionless
soils, of medium to low density, are considerably more susceptible to liquefaction under
Note- Curves give upper limits that

apply to anchors with a static
loadP offrom0to20% of
statC capacity,
earthquake loadings.
,soils,
60
loading
recommended
Earthquake Loading
"of an
0 77
is
107
Numberof LoadinglCycles, nc
cyclic
data are very well known.
6.6.3
102
use
the following factors of safety be used:
'that
101
the
to design for cyclic loadings
are quite conservative, a lower safety factor is
i Ir
109
Because
Factors of Safety.
Anchors embedded in these
even when under very low static loads,

will completely fail and pull out if the soil
liquefies. The prediction of such events is not
treated here, as it is not well-understood and
so
is very complex; however,

ating
the
liquefaction
techniques for evalu-
potential
of soils are
presented in References 6-17 and 6-20.
Impulse Loading
30
6.6.4
20
predicting the holding capacity under impulse

are presented below.
They are appro-
"".6.6.4.1Definitions.
Sloading
S .U
"priate
10
i0
0.
I.i
,0O
106
'.i.
for
squarei or rec-
tangular (L/B S 2), anchor flukes only.

The
procedures consist of applying a number of
influence factors to Equations 6-3 and 6-7, the
basic equations
Numbe eoiUniformLoadingCyces,
Figure 6.6-4. Maximum (lifetime) cyclic loadcapecity
'withoutdevelopmentofcycliccreep
"(sfterRef 6-20).
for use with circular,
Procedures
for calculating, static
short-
term anchor holding capacity.

The influence
factors yield conservative results in all cases.
'
6.19
An impulse load, P,, is defined as basicaly a single, load that is applied quickly but
does not remain for- a long tim (less than
10
for clays and less than 10 seconds
linuter
for
sands).
FFigure, 6.6-1.
An
example
is
shown
in
These loads are considered single
I Rc RI I f(Fst)
where:
= static short-term anchor holding
events
only where enough time elapses between

similar events to allow the soil to return to
I =
its "noraalR
c =
state without any residual
effect
from other impulse loads.
In the absence of
other dynamic loads, impulse loading will result
R =
in a higher anchor holding capacity during the
If =
loading event than that computed for the static

short-term holding capacity.
That is,
the
anchor will be able to resist an impulse loading
*
higher
than
6.6.4.2
ity
its
static
short-term
Cohesive Soil.
(6-8)
capacity (Equation 6-3 for

cohesive soil) [F]
influence factor for adjustirg the
soil strength for strain rate
reduction factor for cyclic
loading
reduction factor for repeated
impulse loading
inertial factor for capacity
increase under very rapid and
short-duration luading (i.e., for
impulse duration less than
0.01 second)
capacity.
The factor I is a strain rate used to adjust for
an increase in the soil undrained shear strength
Thw holding capac-
under impulse loading,
FI, is the maximu

that can be applied to an anchor under
impulse conditions.
It is determined for cohesive soils by:
during
load
obtained
impulse
from
loading.
The
value
Figure 6.6-5
of soil type.
o'woe.conolidated clays (OCR > 2) or

s-nsitie clays (,S)
3.0
~2 .6
-06
nofu,,y consWidated, moderately
s! nitiv ay (St a 2 to )
---.
non-sensitive
c'ormally
lay ,s (St<consolidated.
"2)
2.4
al claysIdI
with liquidity indx > 1
When su is estimated. use normally

Con"lsated, nmxlerat sensitivity cume)
(Note
2-.. .
......
2.2-
1.6
Or0l
SFigure
0.1I
6."-.
1.0
is
on the basis of
impulse load duration and a general description
3.2 T7i7TI,
2.8-
of
10
100
Stretn-ate fwctw, 1, for coheiive wi (after Ref 6-21 )
1O
The
history
factor
prior
Rc
depends
to the
used to adjust FI
on
impulse
for the
the
loading
loading.
It
period,
is
then
determined as follows:
the impulse load is
(1)
RI
'
there
It
is
one
2.-,..4-1
3.4
~
Z3.2
impulse
(6-10)
is the average frequency,
in impulses
per hour, over a 4-hour period.
in
FI
(1)
for the inertia
of the
soil mass at very
short duration loadings (i.e., where the loading

is known to be applied for less than 0.1
if
second).
It
is
determined
from Figure 6.6-6.
a 4-hour
__
_
__-o__
__
_
_
&-I-a
28
load
______._I
3...
7 ft
"622.2
2.0
AW
1.4 12
"""
1.4
1.2
0.001,
0.01
L.0
0.1
100.0
10.0
Dwadom (on)
.'...'.LAM
Figure G.&&L Inrlo
..
more
impulse
is determined as follows:
only
"ii~i'3.0
1.33 e
where fc
(6-9)
factor RI adjusts FI for repeated
loadings.
is
factor If is used to adjust (increase)
Pc/Fst
The
."
there
the first event, then Rc
ct6The
Rc
if
-1.15fc
if
1.0;"- or (2) if cyclic loads immediately precede

the impulse event, then:
Af
(2)
influence of other
nonstatic loads that are occurring at about the

same time and is
R= 1;, or
than one impulse load in a 4-hour period, then:
Moto, Of, for coholve &-A cohesionim soils (WW
8-21
FRef 6-21).
b.6.4.3
COt.s'onless *;oil.
capacity wdvr' ipalse

soil's is
also ,4er've
influence
static
-a-ctor!
hildin';
The
luading in
holling
The
coheyionless
Dy applying a
r-rfres of
on
to the calculated -,'irt-tere
cmp&:ity.
The
maxA.m.
R(RRI
,'.'"
(6-11)
If(F)
'
holding
the soil
obtain NqI'
anchor
capacity IMP1
U
, lcading i.given by:
F1
adjusted
capacity
factor,
NqI'
accounts for the effect, of the isipulse loading

friction angle, .*.
In
order
to
first a new friction angle adjusted
for the impulse loading effect,
#I, is
calcu-
lated as shown below [Ref 6-21].
Then,
NqI is
determined
Figure 6.5-4.
0I
from
s
sin-1
the
curves
in
(6-2)
-+(I -sin)sin (-2
"where:
.
F = static short-term anchor holding

capacty (Equation 6-7 for
where I is the influence factor for adjusting
cohesionless soil) [F]
the soil strength (from

sionless soil).
N = cohesionless soil holding capacity

q
factor adjusted for impulse
="loading
The factor R is determined in the same

manner as for coh.-sive soil. This is described
in Section 6.6.4.2.
cohesionless soil holding capacity

N
q-factor (from Figure 6.5-4)
Rc = reduction factor for cyclic
"loading
'-"iauls
Figure 6.6-7 for cohe-
RI = reduction factor for repeated

impulse loading
factorfor capacity
I f = inertial
increase under very rapid and
dratonles loading tan10
(i.e., for
short-duration
iapulse duration less than
"3.01 second)
The factor for repeated impulse
icadings,
RP is dependent on the frequency of those

impuise loads. ?s : (1) if ?s S one impulse/
min.
1.0;
RI
then
or
(2)
if
fs
> one
impulse/lO sin. then RI is obtained from:
3.24Jflp~
2.8
3,0
7tII
2.6
8
ine-sahry sands
-co
mands
*-
'
-Im:diumd
ItSin
a- M)
2.4
2.2
"a
S12.0
SI
14 i
/1.0
0.01
10.0
1.0
1.1
100.0
Loed Duration (,ecs,
"Figure 6.6-7.
Strain-raft factor, I for cohlsionlag soil (aftar Ref 8-21).
6-22
..
. .
1000.0
Table 6.7-1.
-0. 116fs
R
2 e
where fs is
10Factor
the average number of impulses per
St..a
siit
ftr Refa622)
Reasons for Consideration
Impact Loading
During Embedment
Effect similar to earthquake

loading but with greatpr
local Influence; more critical problem in loose soils.
Figure 6,6-6.
calculate
Remolding or
Disturbance of
Soils During
Installation
Needs consideration in all

anchor installations; effect
varies significantly from one
soil to another.
allowable design loadings from the maximum

impulse loadings calculated from this section,
Cyclic Loading
by Anchor
IMportant consideration in
all anchor installations.
Local Instability
After Anchor
Pullout
Potentially can progress to

major slope failure.
Direct
Application of
Anchor Load
to Slope
"robably not more significant

than a local instability
problem but can progress into
large slide.
Factors of Safety.
To
recomiended
safety
of
factors
the
Sec-
in
tion 6.5.7 should be applied.
A.-7
OTHER INFLUENCES ON HOLOD,0G CAPACITY

Holding Capacity on Slopes
6.7.1
-Two major
Uthe
tems
should
in
ure and, therefore, lowering the holding capac-
of embedded
stabiliLy of
ty that can be developed.

A significant portion of the soil shear strength is mobilized to
support th, soil slope against gravitational
be considered
predicting -the holding capacity

first,
plate anchors on slopes:
slope itself under the additional influence

of the eabedeent anchor; and second, the influonce of the in.-lined seafloor on the soil reslst'ance mobilized (I.e., holding capacity)
tout
loaded mfailur.
anchor.
For downslope loading, most of the soil

shear stresses developed to resist anchor pullwill be in addition to those resisting slope
The result Is that a sm1ler mount of
forces.
The effect of an anchor on slope stability

extremely 'complex, involving the effects of
"is
the soil's shear strength is available to resist

anchor pullout than is available with a horizon-
installation and anchor loading on the

Although slope stabiity is treat
This becomes less important as

tal seafloor.
the anchor is loaded in a more vertical or more
separately in Chapter 11, no direct solution to

the
associated
.problems
is
presented.
upsiope direction.
Methods for calculating the reduced holding
anchor
.:-slope.
*-'-"
Tablo'6.7-1
presents
list of factors
cppacity
asso-
ciated with direct-e.edeent anchor installation

and loading which influence s'jbmarine slope
S-eanchor
Factors Associated With DirectEmbedment Anchors Which Can

Submarine
influence (after
Rof Slope
6-22)
The inertial factor If is determined in the

s
a
s
cb
S
saw
manner as for cohesive soil (described in
from
determined
is
I1f
Section 6.6.4.2).
6.6.4.4
:,"
S~Stability
(6-13)
f 6-2]
[R f-22.O
stablity (Re
fatsledt
Aoll fator-s
loeasidtomultiplying
Al
stblt
of
stability depwndi
Slope angle
have not been
to a high
Fs
degree on the type and sensitivity of the sedi-
ment.
slopes
a horizontal seafloor by a reduction factor, Rs,

determitned by:
d
It
therefore, greater slope instability.
.
of
plate
to
note
that
the
influence
is important
and,
on slope
on
lower resistance to soil mass down-slope sliding
anchors
anchors
developed. However, as a conservative approach,

the holding capacity of a direct-embedment
on a specific slope can be estimated by
the holding capacity calculated for
itself Is not a clear indi-
F5
cator of potewitial problms.

The inclined seofloor also influences
where Fs is the factor of safety against a slope
the
failure without the anchor.
anchor by lowering the resistance to soil fail-
(2.
-23
.. .-
..
.'S
**~*
***~*~***~
*~U~S*'%
Rs represents the
Note: This equation is completely empirical and

not dimensionally stable. Values used for m
and v must be in the units described,
amount of soil strength remaining, or the amount

mis
not
the
slope
-not mobilized
in
maintaining
stability.
Note that in computing the anchor
anchor
both
and
depth
the
and N are based on
h
fluke and piston, mass
a=anchor
ahlu
k
p
n
a depth of embedment measured perpendicular to
v = initial fluke velocity [fps]
holding
capacity,
holding capacity factors N
(slugs]
the seafloor surface.
"This
6.7.2
equation can be used
holding capacity
Creep Under Static Loading
for estimating the
the NCEL propellant-
of all
embedded coral-fluke anchors in coral seafloors
(Ref
However,
(Ref 6-24]
[;
Sshear
"-
and
that,
indicate
tests on two pelagic clays
similar to the NCEL pTatelike coral fluke (sce
only
the
static
ooze
[Ref 6-25]
Figure. 6.2-3(a)] and for coral
with unconfined
undrained
condition,
compressive
from
strength reductions may not be nearly so
6.8.2
seafloor soils, negative pore pressures will not

be generated above the anchor plate, and the
strength
always
creep
the
failure
the
on
maximum
long-term
develop
to
efforts
date,
predictive
propellant-embedded
raot been successful.
plate
for
anchors under only static loading is minimal.

safety factor of 2 against creep failure
recomended
To
There-
[Ref 6-24].
potential
1,500
anchors
reliable
for
equation
in
hard rock
sistent holding capacity performance.
holding
A conical-
shaped fluke design [Figure 6.2-3(b)] is

test
Rif 6-1].
Col
Prediction
of
dlrect-mbedment
anchor
capacity in coral is difficult due to
seafloors.
systems
"evaluated by
equation
at
Oahu
a simple
and Kauai,
function of kinetic
~only
Hawaii,
vesicular
Work is continuing in thW
in
basalt
area to
method available ,for reliably
estimating
capacity.
were
regression analysis.
An
6.9
energy was developed 'from
and
It
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
6.9.1
estimates the
long-term holding capacity as
Pfvblem 1--An Embedment Anchor Used in

Cohesive Soil
fol-
"lows:
6.9.1.1. Problem
(1)
S.684
Fc
in
designs
for predicting holding capacity as a
these anchor tests [Ref 6-1].

short-
and
fluke
'Tests
of anchor flukes embedded by the' NCEL 1OK and

20K
granite
seven
recom-
based 'on
better understand',embedment anchor behavior and

to allow development of a predictive method.
Until then, proof-loading 'must be used as the
"holding
of coral
with
results
weathered
"-
have
Local rock strength vari-
mended for use in hard rock seafloors,
the variable nature
the
ations within the rock types tested are believed

to be largely responsible for the lack of con-
A
is
capacity (Ref 6-11].
6.8.1
to
Rock
holding capacity
will
plate
anchor
time
increase with
the
fore,
above
ranging
strengths
4,200 psi.
great for seafloor sediments.

Further, for soil
reasonable in
overconsolidation ratios (OCR)
shear
Equa-
Thus,
tion 6-15 is valid only for anchor fluke shapes
calcareous
for
limited
loading
under
soils
6-23].
was developed.
data from which it
strength reductions of 60% for some soft
"cohesive
the anchor data wire
where
to the range of input parameters covered by the
some onshore soils, data have been taken showing

soil
those
The use of this equation is
obtained.
In
under static loading conditions is possible.
to
similar
of direct-embedment anchors
failure
Creep
-.
o.0066[ 1/2) m v]
Statement:
Determine
the maximum allowable steady uplift
force,
(2) the maximum allowable cyclic load component,
(6-15)
'6-24
........................**.*.
7. -
and
(3)
propellant-embedment
anchor in a cohesive seafloor so,that a buoy and
buoy and its mooring line being replaced more
mooring system may be properly designed.
frequently.
of
Data:
411.L
The subsurface buoy is expected to
conditions.
impulse
under
remain in place for 10 years, with the surface
loading
,1,.
capacity
holding
the
specific
An
NCEL-style
20K
propellant-
The
subsurface
buoy
installation
procedure will result in a single impulse load
embedment enchor with a 3- by 3-foot clay fluke,
at
with 8.5 ft2 bearing area,
duration.
is to be installed in
the' anchor
of
between
0.01 and 0.1 second
In addition, snme cyclic loading will
from wave
loading on the surface buoy.
1,200 feet of water off the Southern California
result
Coast to moor a subsurface buoy about 60 feet
(Historical records show that the maximum storm
"below
in a 10-year period produces 13-second waves for
the
water
transmission
surface
buoy
installation
is
[see
considered
and
surface
Figure 6.9-1].
critical
data
in nature.
"The
site has been well-surveyed for prior work
and
the
material
is
"very
about a 10-hour period.)
The
soft"
Problem Solution:
6.9.1.2
The analytical
silty-clay
procedures and computations used to solve this
(cohesive).
A soil strength profile has been

The site does
established [see Figure 6.9-2].
problem are shown below. They follow the procedures outlined in Figure 6.3-1 and in Sec-
not contain any hazardous or otherwise unusual
tions 6.3 through 6.6 of this chapter.

0
~22e
sol
shear seh, .s, (pi)
-_
mbm"f
T3.
33"--0
120o ftatya0
%tt.
Whm40
2t&24
-iyOl
-
1.37*
Figure 6.9-2. Soil stren~th profile for example
Figure 6.9-1. Mooring sketch for example

problem 1.
.-.
problem 1.
Problem 6.9.1
COMPUTATIONS
Calculate the anchor's static short-term holding capacity.

Fs
"st
1.
From Equation 6-3,
A su h No 0.84 + 0.16(./L)]
Cs
a
Estimate anchor fluke penetration depth

(from Table 6.2-2).
35 ft
6-25
",
e,
"Problem 6.9.1
"
2.
COMPUTATIONS
Determine the embedment depth after keying

(Equation 6-1).
"""
Zp
z = 35 ft - 2(3.0- ft) = 29.0 ft
-2H
3.
Determine s in the vicinity of the keyed

anchor (frog Figure 6.9-2).
su = 3.0 psi = 432 psf
4.
Determine the strength reduction factor, h

(Table 6.5-1).
h = 0.8
5.
Determine the short-tem holding capacity

factor, N
(from Figure 6.5-2 with the
z/B = (29 ft)/(3.0 ft) = 9.7
z/B ratio5
N = 15
Cs
Calculate the static short-term holding

"capacity (Equation 6-3).
F t = (8.5 ft 2 )(432 psf)(0.8)(15)[0.84

+ 0.16(3 ft/3 ft)A
'4b
"6.
44,100 14
st
Calculate the anchor's static long-term holding capacity.
Flt= A(c'
7.
N +
z N )[0.84 + 0.16(8/L)]
Calculate the reduced strength parameters

for soft clay (Equations 6-5 and 6-6).
From Figure 6.9-2, c and
0.2 psi
(2-
c''=37
1;'
From Equation 6-4,
are known:
Oeg
= arctan2(.-t~n1)
:' = (2/3)(0.2 psi) ='0.13 psi = 19 psf

=arctan(2/3
tan (37 deg)]
=26.7
deg
8.
Determing the long-term holding capacity

factor, Nc (from Figure 6.5-3).
*
9.
Determine the soil buoyant unit weight,

(known - Figure 6.9-2).
10.
Determine the long-term (drained) holding

capacity factor, N (from Figure 6.5-4).,
q
z/B = 9.7
Calculate the long-term holding capacity
Fit (8.5 ftl)[(19 psf)(9) + (26 pcf)
11.
z/B = 9.7
Nc= 9.0:
'
= 26
2b6bpsf
Nq
q
(Fquation 6-4).
(29 ft)(7)][0.84 + 0.16(3 ft/3 ft)]

Flt
46,300 lb
However, maximum Fit

12.
Calculate the maximum allowable static

.load (long- and short-term) from F
and
Fl and an appropriate safety factO
' iction 6.5.7).
'o
allowable P5s
%6.2
Fst/Fs
Fst 0 44,100 lb
Fs = 3 (for a critical Installation)

a
allowable P a (44,100 lb)/(3)}
Ps a 14,700 Ilb
Problem 6.9-1
13.
Calculate the anchor's maximum holding capacity under cyclic loading.

dissipation of excess pore pressures and cyclic loading from storms.
Estimate the soil permeability, k
k =.3 x 10"8 fps
Examine time for
(Table 6.6-1 for silty-clay).

14.
Determine the time duration required for

dissipation of excess pore pressures, td
(from Figure 6.6-2 interpolating betweef
the curves).
15.
Characterize the storm loading.

given in the problem setup.)
8 x 104 sec = 22 hr
(Data are
Historical records show a storm duration of

10 hr and an average wave period of 13 sec.
Because t
Is greater than the storm duration,
the
stormcguration controls this. analysis.
,16.
tcd
Determine the number of load cycles, n.,
= (10 hr)(3,600 sec/hr)
that occur during the storm loading.
nc
13 sec/cycle
2,770 loading cycles per storm
*=
*'''..
17.
18.
Determine the maximum double-amplitude
P /F
cyclic load, P . (From Figure 6.6-3 using

curve for low-ilasticity clay and 2,770
loading cycles. Note that the average r
static load is 33% of short-term capacity.)
PC = (0.32)(44,100 lb)
Determine the maximum allowable cyclic load

using an appropriate safety factor (Section
6.6.2.4).
= 32% = 0.32
14,100 lb
Fs = 1.75 (for a criticil installation)

allowable Pc
(14,100 lb)/1.75 = 8,100 1L
Calculate the anchor's capacity under impulse loading.
From Equation 6-8,
F I = I Ret I1 If(Fst)
19.
Determine the rate factor, I (from Figure

5.6-5 and a known impulse load duration of
0.01 to 0.1 sec during subsurface buoy
attachment).
I a 1.8 (the lowest value in the range of times

for normally consolidated, moderately
sensitive clay)
"20.
Determine the reduction factor, RP (from

"Section 6.6,.4.2).
"
Rc
21.
Determine the reduction' factor, R, (from

Section 6.6.4.2).,
Rf
1 (Impulse loading occurs only once)
22.
etermu ne6the
"."Figure 6.6-6).
1.0 (the lowest value in the range of

times)
23.
nertial factor,
.
,
(from
Calculate the maximum impulse load capacity

(Equation 6-8).
(impulse loading is the first event)
F, - (1.8)(1)(1)(1)(44,100 lb)
79,400 lb
\6"27
I -. .................................................-.-.'.............,,.,.' - .:" ". "
",
"',
:.
"
-.
4-
....
.
.
-''"
.........o
...
""-"-"
. .-....
..
-".
".
".
*." "." "." "
.","
"
Problem 6.9-1
___
COMPUTATIONS
"allowable FI
3.0 (for a critical installation)
Fs
Calculate the maximum allowable impulse

load using an appropriate safety factor
(Section 6.6.4.4).
24.
allowable F1 = (79,400 lb)/3.0 = 26,500 lb

e
= FI/Fs
SUMMARY
1.
The maximum allowable steady uplift force is 14,700 lb (the lowest of the short-term and
long-term maximum capacities divided by a factor of safety).
"2.
The maximum allowable cyclic load component (double-amplitude) is 8,100 lb (the cyclic load
"capacity for the expected storm conditions divided by a factor of safety).
3.
The maximum allowable impulse load which can be applied when the subsurface buoy is
installed is 26,500 lb (the impulse load capacity at that time divided by a factor of
safety).
6.9.2
Problem 2--An Embedment Anchor Used in
of
Cohesionless Soil
10 seconds.
10 hours
duration
with
In addition,
wave
periods 'of
10 smaller storms are
expected each year with approximately the same

6.9.2.1
(1)
the
and
Problem
Statement:
maximum allowable
(2)
the
maximum
static
allowable
wave
Determine
uplift
cyclic
force
each.
uplift
zone.
but of only 6 hours duration
conditions
The site is not in an active earthquake
force of a specific propel lant-embe?-.ent anchor

in a sand seafloor for design of a subsurface
buoy's mooring system.
Data:
"anchor is
A Navy
lOOK
ptpellant-embedment
to be installed 'n a sand seafloor to
tautly moor a large subsurface buoy 20 feet

below the water surface' [see Figure 6.9-3]. The
"lOOK anchor
sand fluke Is 5 by 2.5 feet and has
2Of,
a surface area of 11 ftW.
Corers have- consis"tently recovered a well-graded dirty silty-sand,
200ft
which has been estimated to be inma medium-denseo

state.
A 3.5-kHz subbottom survey detects only
o:one
reflector, believed to be a rock contact, at......
about
40 feet.
geologic
data
A review
indicates
of
available
nothing
that
2 years.
....
..
would
rock
The anchor is scheduled to be used for

Impulse loading is not expected. The
Figure 6.9.3. Mooring sketch for exampleproblem 2.
worst storm expected is once in 2 years and is
...
oi
ol:
contradict a simple sand-over-rock soil profile
Smodel.
..
.. ::.:.:::
areal
6.28
6.9.2.2
Problem Solution:
The analytical
dures
procedures and computations used to solve this

problem are shown, below.
outlined
in
Figure 6.3-1
and
Sections 6.3 through 6.6 of this chapter.
They follow the proce-
"Problem 6.9,2
COMPUTATIONS
Find the anchor's static holding capacity.

capacity is:
"F=
1.
b z N[0.84
From Equation 6-7, short-term and long-term
0.16(B/L)]
Estimate soil engineering properties y

and k. (Unlike Problem 1, soils data Rave
not been obtained and must be estimated
yb = 60 pcf (Table 5.3-1)

# a 33 deg.(Table 5.3-1)
"from typical
conditions.)
For well-graded
dirty medium-dense silty sand. Table 5.3-1
gives values for * and y for medium-dense
sand. Table 6.6-1 has values for k.
V'-
1 x 10-5 (Table 6.6-1)
2.
Estimate anchor fluke penetration depth

(from Table 6.2-2).
zp
3.
Determine the embedment depth after keying

(Equation 6-2).
z = 23 ft
zZp=
4.
.
23 ft
1.5(5.0 ft) = 15.5 ft
1.5H
Determine the holding capacity factor, N

(from Figure 6.5-4 and the z/B ratio). q
z/B =(15.5 ft)/(2.S ft)
6.2
"Nai 15
q
5.
S(Equation
F = (11 ft 2 )(60 pcf)(15.5 ft)(15)[O.84

+ 0.16(2.5 ft/5.0 ft)]
Calculate the static holding capacity

6-7).
"F= 141,000
."-.
6.
Calculate the maximum allowable static

load, from F and an appropriate safety
factor (Section 6.5.7).
lb
Fs = 3 (for a case where soils data are not

well known)
allowable P a141,000 lb/3 z 47,000 lb
allowable Ps a F/F 5s
Calculate tne anchor's maximum holding capacity under cyclic loading.
7.
Determine the time duration required for

st
of excess pore pressures,
(from Figure 6.6-24 interpolating betwei
curves).
Compare this with the storm
duration.
8.
Determine the number of cycles, nc, within

tcd for 10-sec period waves.
9.
Determine the maximum double-amplitude
Pc/F a 40% = 0.40
__dissipation
cyclic load,, P
....
...
'"
a 150 sec (Figure 6.6-2)
Because t
of 10 hr.
(from Figure 6.6-3 and n ).

c
.6.29
'
cd-
is less than the storm duration

cd controls this analysis.
a (150 sec)/(10 sec/cycle)
- 15 cycles
pP
(0.40)(141,000 lb)
56,400 lb
in
Problem 6.9-2
COMPUTATIONS
10.
Determine the maximum allowable cyclic load

using an appropriate safety factor (Section
Fs
1.75 (for a case where soils data are

not well known)
6.6.2.4).
Pc = (56,400 lb)/(1.75) = 32,200 lb
allowble PC ==P/s
c P /F
allowable
Calculate tVie maximum holding capacity under lifetime cyclic creep considerations.
11.
Calculate the number of loading cycles, nT,

over the 2-yr life span of the mooring.
(This is the sum of the one 10-hr storm
and the 20 6-hr storms.)
nT
T
.--
1(10 br)(3,600 sec/hr)

10 sec/cycle
20(6 hr)(3,600 sec/hr)
10 sec/cycle
nT = 46,800 cycles
12.
Determine the maximum double-.amplitude

cyclic load, Pc (from Figure 6.6-4 and nT),
assuming: (1) P is below 20% of F, and
(2) Ps is equal to the maximum allowable
value of Ps
(1)
If Ps is below 28,200 l'b (20% of F), then

P /F-- 45% = 045 (interpolation between the
c6rves for dense and loose granular soils)
Pc = (0.45)(141,000 lb) = 63,400 lb

(2)
If P = 47,000 lb (the allowable P ), then

Pc/F must be reduced. According tl Section
6.6.2.3, it is reduced by the percent that
Ps/F lies above5i 20%. Because
% Ps/F = (47,000/141,000)(100) = 33.3%

the allowable P must be reduced by
(33.3% - 20%), 5r 13.3%. Therefore,
13.
PC
(0.45 - 0.133)(141,000 lb) - 44,700 lb
Calculate the maximum allowable (lifetime)

double-amplitude cyclic loads from P and
an appropriate safety factor (Sectiof"
6.6.2.4).
Fs
1.75 (for a case where soils data are

not well known)
allowable PC
allowable PC = 63,400 lb/1.75 a 36,200 lb
P /Fs
When Ps is below 28,200 lb,
When Ps is 47,000 lb (maximum allowable P)

allowable Pc
44710
,
lb/1.75
25,500 lb
SUMMARY
1.
The maximum allowable static uplift force is 47,000 lb (the static maximum capacity divided
by a factor of safety).
2.
The maximum allowable cyclic uplift fqrce is 36,200 lb (if

28,200 lb) or 25,500 lb (if
safely be).
the static uplift force is below
.-
,%
the static uplift force is 47,000 1b, the highest it can
6-30
_.M.
.-
6.10
6-10. J.E. Smith. Umbrella pile-anchors, Naval

Civil Engineering Lzboratory, Technical Report
Port Hueneme, Calif.,' Nay 1963, p. 4.
R-247.
REFERENCES
6-1. J.F. Wadsworth and R.N. Beard. Propellantembedded anchors: Prediction of holding capacity in coral and rock seefloors, Civil EngineerPort
ing Laboratory, Technical Note N-1595.
Hueneme, Calif., Nov 1980.
I-
"Interaction of anchors
6-11. R.J. Taylor.
with soil and anchor design," presented at short
course on Recent Developments in Ocean Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
Calif., Jan 1981.
6-2. R:J. Taylor, D. Jones, and R.N. Beard.

"Upllift-resisting anchors,"' in Ocean Engineering, vol 6. Pergamon Press, 1979, pp 3-137.
H.S. Stevenson and W.A. Venezia. Jettedmarine anchors, Naval Civil Engineering
Port
N-1082.
Note
Technical
L,boratory,
1970.
Hucneme, Calif., Feb
6-12.
"in
6-3. J.F. Wadsworth and R.J. Taylor.. CEL 10K
propellant-actuated anchor, Civil Engineering
Port
N-1441.
Note
Technical
Laboratory,
Hueneme, Calif., Jun 1976.
-. '.
6-13.
N. Kerr.
"The hydropin:
A new concept
in mooring," Transactions, North East Coast

Institution of Engi'neers and Shipbuilders,
vol 92, no. 2, Nov 1975, pp 39-44.
6-4. B.G. True and R.J. Taylor. The CEL 100K

tanker
anchor - Utilization' for
propellant
moorings in soft coral at Diego Garcia, Civil
Engineering Laboratory,' Technical Note N-1446.
Port Hueneme, Calif., Jul 1976.
6-14. R.N. Beard. Expendable Doppler penetrometer: A performance evaluation, Civil Engineering Laboratory, Technical Report R-855. *Port
Hueneme, Calif., Jul 1977.
6-5. D.G. True and R.J. Taylor. "New expedient

anchors in fleet applications," Naval Engineers
Journal, Feb 1981, pp 53-61.
Acoustic
6-15. R.J. Malloy and P..l. Valent.
siting and verification of the holding capacity
of embedment anchors, Civil Engineering LaboraPort Hueneme,
tory, Technical Note N-1523.
Car f, Ju 1978.
lOOK propellant .anchor

S6-6. J.C. Miller.
Garcia fleet mooring
Diego
technology transfer
Engineering LaboraCivil
Naval
installation,
,--.
Port Hueneme,
tory, Technical Note N*-1638.
Calif., Jul 1978.
Calif.., Jul 1982.
6-16.
Design manual:
Soil mechanics,
founda-
tions, and earth structures, Naval Facilities

"Engineering Command, NAVFAC 0M-7. Washington,
6-7. R.N. Beard. , Direct embedment vibratory

anchor, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory,
"Technical Report R-7S1. Port Hueneme, Calif.,
Jun 1973.
Holding capacity of plate

R.M. Beard.
anchors, Civil Engineering Laboratory, Technical
Report. R-82. Port Huenem, Calif., Oct 1980.
6-17.
A. Kovacs, S. Blouin, B. McKelvy,. and H.

Colligan. On the theory of ground anchors, Cold
Regions Research and Engineering, Laboratory,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Report
258. Hanover, N.H., Jan 1975.
"6-8.
'.4
"Breakout resistance of
Vesic.
6-18. A.S.
objects embedded in ocean bottom,," in Civil
Engineering in the Oceans II. New York, N.Y.,
American Society of Civil Engineers. 1970,
pp 137-165.
6-9. resign manual, harbor and coastal fac~llties, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Jil 1968.
Washington, D.C.,
NAVFAC 0#4-26.
-.
'
'
&31
. . .. . .... . . . .
- .. . .
-..
.-
6-19.
P.J.
capacity
Valent.
tests
Results
on
direct
of
some
embedment
uplift
Exponential base for natural logarithms
anchors,
Holding capacity in cohesionless soils [F]
Fc
Anchor holding capacity in coral seafloors
F1
Holding capa:ity under impulse loa-ling (F]
Civil Engineering Laboratory, Technical

N-1522.
Port Huenee, Calif., Jun 1978.
6-20.
H.G.
Herrmann.
Design
Note
for
F.]
embedment anchors subjected to dynamic loading

conditions, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory,
FIt
Fs
Technical
Report R-888.
procedures
Nov 1981.
Short-term static holding capacity [F1

st..fc
Average number of impulse loadinas per
hour, in clay, over a 4-hour period [lIT)
6-21.
B.J. Douglas.
Effects of rapid loading
rates on the holding capacity of direct embed-
Average number of impulse loadings per

10 minutes, in sand [I/T]
ment anchors,
Correction factor for soil. disturbance

due to penetration and keying
Influence factor for adjusting soil

strength for impulse loading
If
Inertial factor for holding- capacity

increase une-r impulse loading
Soil perme&,-ility (L/T]
Fluke or plate maximum dimension, usually

length [L]
Port Hueneme,
D.A.
F.H.Kulhawy,
6-22.
Calif.,
Civil Encineering Laboratory,
M-R420.
No.
Port Hueneme,
Long-term static holding capacity [F)

Factor of safety
P.O.
Calif. , Oct
_"78.
and
S.P.
Sangrey,
Clemence.
Direct embedment anchors on sloping
seafloors,
state-of-the-art,
Laboratory,
P.O.
No.
Engineering
Civil
M-R510.
Port
Hueneme,
Calif., Oct 1978.

6-23.
A.
Singh
and
J.K.
Mitchell.
"General
stress-strain-time function for soils," Journal

of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
ivl
AmrianSoiey
American Society
off Civil
no. SMl,.Jan 1968, pp 21-46.
capacity equation mFT2/L]

L
ngners-vol 94,
Engineers,
N',C
Long-term holding capacity factor in
Nn6
Short-term holding capacity factor in
cs
6-24.
Civil
cohesive soil
Beard.
Long-term holding capacity

of statically loaded anchors in cohesive soils,
R.M.
cohesive soil
N-1545.
Engineering Laboratory,
Technical
Port Hueneme, Calif., Jan 1979.
6-25.
P.J.
Waent.
Long-term
Nq
conditionc-to.-
NqI
os
s
lit
adjusted for impulse loading
Actual number of cycles occurring during
Note
stress-strain
time period, ted
behavior ot a seafloor soil, Civil Engineering

N-1515.
Port
Laboratory,
Technical
Note
Lbrtr Tcncl
Nt
N155
Potanchor
nT
Total number of cycles occurring during

lifetime
Huenm,
Pc
Double-amlitude cyclic load component [F]
PI
Magnitude, of the ikLulse line load
Calif.,
Feb 1978.
F])
6.11
SYMBOLS
Ps
Stat Ic or nearly static line load

component (F]
Projected fluke area perpendicular to

direction of pullout [L2]
R
C
Reduction factor for holding capacity

under cyclic loading
Fluke or plate minimum dimension,
R1
Reduction factor for holding capacity
usually
width [L]
c
2
Drained soil cohesion [F/LA
soft underconsolidated soils [F/Lz1
6-32
.................
under repeated impulse loading
Rs
Reduction factor applied to anchor holding

capacity to account for slope instability
St
Soil sensitivity
' Reduced drained soil cohesion for very
.
-.
".
---.-
""'
tcd
Tim duration required for dissipation of

excess pore pressure [T]
velocity of rock fluke [L/T]

Initial
.'--"
Embedded depth of fluke after keying ILl
zk
Distatnce required for fluke keying [L]
Df
Maximaum penetration depth of keyi;q-type
fluke rIL
3
Soil buoyant unit weight [F/L ]
Soil friction angle [deg]
Soil undrained shear strength [F/Lz]
Drained cohesive soil friction angle (deg]

'
Reduced drained cohesive soil friction
angle for very soft underconsolidated

sails [deg]
Soil friction angle adjusted for impulse
loading [deg]
A.i
!l.4
6-33
Chapter 7
"DRAG-EMIEDMENT ANCHORS
7.1
"-
7. 1.1
Drag Anchor Description'
7.1.2
INTROOUCTION
Most drag anchors are referred to by manu-
Purpose and Scope
While
facturer tradenames as the anchor type.

This
selection,
and
design
geotechnical
""
are listed;
Sare
information
Criteria
follows.
for
information
drag-
necessary
mooring system loads,
Smooring
"""
and
system components
For
prediction
moored vessels,
the
Design Manual
Navy's
""
of
and
are
inspection
reader is
loadings
which
into
and -Inspection
of
Offshore
(Ref 7-3],
the' API
parts
of
the
These and other components

are shown in
improve the
Stocks or stabilizers
anchors
seafloor
to improve
and
are
their biting
their
rotational
The biting or leading edge of the
is the
fluke tip.
The arei where the
f'iuke, connects to the shank is the crown or head

of the anchor.
the ODt
The
chain
or
wire
rope
mooring
line
attached to the anchor shank is an integral part
Structures"
of a drag anchor system.

mooring
"Recommended
line
is
dragged
One section of this

below
the
seafloor
surface by the anchor, while a variable length

of the mooring line usually rests
dragged along the seaflour surface.
and
analysis
Ref 7-5, 7-6].

Veritas
(Ref
are
generally
ing
available
Mooring inspection and mainte-
(Ref 7-4]
and
suarized
by
line sections
zontal
FJeld
7-7].
"Often called "mud palms" or simply "palms."
'
on and is
Both moor-
develop resistance to hori-
movement and contribute to the holding

capacity of the anchor system.
rules have been 'drawn up by Oet norske
nnce
4.,
and a fluke or
digging
Floating Drilling Units" (Ref 7-4]. Information

on mooring system component selection and system
.
-'-
applied',
the
Practice for the Analysis of Mooring Systems for
design
(jjj
and
the
luke
on
(Ref 7-2], the' rules of. the American Bureau of

Shipping
are
seafloor.
stability.
norske Veritas "Rules for the Design, Construction
the
used on many
of
referred to the
DM-26 rRef 7-1],
line
flukes,
into
not discussed.
environmental
common
capability of the anchor fluke to open and dig
Prediction of
selection of mooring line
maintenance
load is
mooring
common to most drag anchors

Tripping
palms
Figure 7.1-1.
then presented. A section on field solution

of anchor performance problem follows.
materials,
different
share
widely used anchors
sediment resistance.
techniques for designing or sizing
This chapter deals only with geotechnical
very
anchor and provide the bearing area to mobilize
for selection of an anchor
aspects of mooring system design.
have a
All have a shank, through which the
features.
for design
may
anchors
many
shape,
and a brief description of
anchor is described,
.
specialty
performance,
The functioning of the dr3g
embedment anchors.
-C
consolidates
chapter
7-1
.- ,-
moor
linemooring
n
moorin
lineline
mooring line
testng on
scafloor)
embedded
above
scalloor
crown padeye
trppin
fluke
Figure 7. 1-1. Featuires Of a drag anuior (after Ref 7-5).

Types of Drag Anchorsr
7.1.3
Drag anchors are classified as:

*
o
o
*
Movable or fixed fluke

Bilateral or unilateral fluked
Hard or soft seafloor anchors
Standard or high holding power anchors
WAeal lk nbrrsigo
"L0
warkboac (after Rd 7-a)
*(Figure
*
* --
*(Figure
*
Movable fluke anchors are hinged at the

...............
crown so that the anchor can lie flat, with the
...
plane of the flukes parallel to the axis of the
uii. ass
n 4-gangle
Movable fluk m
Wb
shank when on the deck of a work boat
u~ ameopacap05 nmd d('mRf7a
7,1-2(a)]. The flukes can still open
I
~~~fully
for digging in when the anchor is pla,.odFgrel2Exmeoavbefuencr
vbl.lueanhr
TExampl cfast
iue
on the seabed (Figure 7.1-2(b)]. Fixed fluke
anchors are those with, either movable flukes
which have been welded or blocked in the open,
position, or, those where the fluke and shank
have been cast or fabricated as a'single piece
BFilutera
flke.ncor-reths1cn
BFigurera
713]achr.aeths
cn
structed so the flukes can open freely to either
side of the -anchor shank (Figure 7.1-4(a)).
Unilateral fluked anchors are constructed so the
fluke must remain only on one
side of the shank
7.1-4(b)].
Unilateral fluked anchors
require greater care in handling and placement
on the seafloor to ensure that the flukes are
down for digging; improper' placement could
result In the anchor being on its back and
unable to dig into the seafloor.
shook
dkV
Houirs 7.1-3. Examnple of a fixed fluke anchor:
BRUCE cast (after Ref

7-2
7-9).
'S
.3.
\3 .00
stabilizer
bar/
(a) Brlumi: lightweight anchor (after Ref 7-10)
W) Unlatera: Hook Anchor (from Ref 7-11)
Figure 7.114, Examples of bilateral fluke anchors.

Anchors which work best in hard soil seafloors
""
(i.e.,
hard clays
and most
sands
permanent mooring of floating platforms.
and
gravels)
are sharp-fluked with close-set fluke
ings
tips to
initiate penetration.
minimum
"stabilizer
bars
to
counter
They have long

roll
tendencies (Figure 7.1-4(a)].

seafloors,
"area and
on the
hand,
other
because
instability
reusable.
Anchors for soft
reaction
they
of
are
Often,
to an
increase
7.1.4
is
Application of Drag Anchors
are
system
motion
(in
in
line, tension)
and
On the disadvantage side, the drag anchor

often a poor performer on very' hard sea-
floors.
Drag anchors are standard equipment for the
Further,
the drag anchor system is not
a constructed anchor system,
mooring of all mobile craft of sub-,

often
and
load characteristics of the drag anchor system

are required in a mooring system to cope with
maximize fluke
emphasize streamlining to achieve deep
size and are
require
support,
catenary
dynamic load components.
stantial
efficient,
specialized
seafloor penetration (Figure 7.1-5].
"temporary
They
are the leading contenders for temporary moor-
gravity
selected, for the
anchor
system.
like the pile or
After
placement,
the
drag anchor must trip, dig in, and remain stable

with drag.
All of these are statistical performance functions and have a probability of
occurrence lower than 100%, particularly in hard
".
soils.
7.2
7.2.1
FUNCTIONING OF A DRAG ANCHOR
General
"The drag
anchor is analogous to an inverted
kite made to "fly downward" into the soil.

-Figure 7.1-5.
%
''
The
shank acts as the kite bridle, maintaining the

angle of attack of the fluke to the soil to
Example of a soft soil anchor:
maximize the developed mooring line tension in
STEVMUD (from Ref 7-11).
the horizontal 'direction at the seafloor.
'
*..'
-
*.
ab.
...
'.
*..t.
, ..
+*.
..
The
.*\,;*-,
anchor is
pulled
along
the seafloor
digs in or penetrates to
until it
its place of maximum
On soft
muds)
holding capacity.
The tripping palms assist by

causing the movable fluke anchors, when placed
on the seafloor, to begin digging in when
dragged.
,
hardet
the
"itself into
""
in
the
properly,
the
horizontal
the
position.
When
7.2-1(a)].
drag anchor will
embed
Stockless,
them,
dependent on existing mooring line, anchor, and

soil conditions. When not working properly, the
anchor will not embed as deeply nor develop as
will
high a holding capacity,
deadweight
Anchors
LWI,
of
STEVFIX),
this
type
or it may not embed at
"are not
slide at mudline level
anchor ,
at
the
mud
surface
Even the newer anchor types
free of this soft soil tripping problem,

STEVFIX anchor has demonstrated a
tripping
problem
in
soft,
(depicted
is
ing lin, and the second handling,
movable
deploy,
fluke
and
In Figure 7.2-2].
Generally, implementatlon of this procedure requires two vessels
to lay a mooring leg:
one paying out the moor-
recover.
anchor on
silts
soft, sol can be largely

eliminated by proper anchor setting procedures
can. lie flat on the deck of a work

boat with flukes nearly parallel to the shank
and deck.
Generally, the movable fluke anchor
handle,
clayey
[Ref 7-12].
This problem in
"the anchor
the
to set
e.g.,, the
Most drag anchors are the movable, bilateral fluke variety, where the flukes are free
to move to either side of the shank and where
to
(e.g.,
when dragged
with the
movable flukes oriented parallel to the shank or
pointing s~ightly upward, serving only as a
Tripping
easier
and
crowns,
will often not dig into the seafloor but

instead
(Figure 7.2-1(b)].
"Occasionally,
heavy
have tripping problems.

This holds true
especially when the anchor is lowered and placed
crown first by
the -mooring
line [Figure
all.
lowering, and
positioning the anchor for digging in when the
mooring line is pulled.
the
seafloor may not trip.
soft clays
very
to
soil to some equilibrium depth
7.2.2
(i.e.,
with
small or nonexistent tripping palms, or with the

shank-to-fluke hinge far back on the fluke tend
The stabilizers assist, especially on

seafloors, in orienting and maintaining
anchor
working
seafloors
those anchors
(a) Ancio placed crown first on mud sealoor.
(b) Auet fafling to ntp aid siding on soft bottom
Figure 7.2-1. Development of a tripping problem in soft seafloors with an improperly set anchor.
7-4
.*
*.
S7.
2.3
pendnt finetoambor
tomhing botton,. vmdor

Anchorbefore
inftmingfl tine.
vemelwinduz4g
smitng
badf
boat
Embedment, or penetration of the fluke into

seafloor once digging-in is initiated, is
the
governed by the fluke angle,
Ha
X...........X`....
..
..
the soil type,
the
of anchor streamlining, and the smoothof the fluke surfaces.

In addition, the
-degree
X
Embedment
ness
mooring line angle to the seafloor must be zero

to
Fk* tipto, logbotto.
Soil
premme.
holdsfhke open
...
o.......
ensure
that even a properly
selected drag
anchor will embed properly.

poery
hr o........11ebe
There
is
a critical
fluke-to-shank
angle
(termed the "fluke angle," ft) at which the

This
anchor holding capacity is maximized.
,,
-m
critical angle decreases as:
l
[in*e
cked
dgpendsat
"*
Fluke length increases

Shank length decreases
. Fluke surface becomes rougher
*
"X
..........
x..................
Figure 7.2-2. Proper anchor setting sequence using two
floating platforms.
Anchor tripping difficulties may also occur

in
and
dense
hard
Even
soils.
(a)Andragging nhard
alwthfluketp
unable to bitein (after Ref 7-13)
proper
the fluke tips may
anchor handling procedures,
""
with
not be able to develop sufficient local stress
to initiate digging in. Under these conditions,

the
may simply slide without
anchor
"[Figure 7.2-3(a)]
or
may
dig
tripping
in slightly
to
effect standing up, (Figure 7.2-3(b)], and then

'fall on its side and drag (Figure 7.2-3(c)].
having a relatively heavy crown
Those anchors
and a shank connection well

(Moorfast,
of fluke area
"susceptible to
corrected
this penetration problem in hard
sharpening
by
the
improve digging capability,

tripping
"moment,
"degrees
anchor
to
palms
and, by
types
prevent
stocks
to
tips
fluke
to
by welding barbs on
increase
the
tripping
fluke
angle
several
reducing
the
below
sand
setting.
Most
drag
-------
incorporate stocks or stabilizers

the
completely on its
the
(b)Anchor stadingupon hard sealoor after fluke

have bitten-in (after Ref 713)
tips
The hard soil' tripping problem has been
soils.
the
back of the center
Offdrill ,. etc. ) appear
serve
standing
anchor
fror
falling
side [Figure 7.2-3(c)].

to. hold
the
fluke tips
Thus,
in
Figure 7.2.3 Development of a tripping problem
digging position.
(c))Anuhor sadingupbuttippingtosidedO
(atrRef7-)
d.n
in hard seafloor.
,7-
For fluke angles greater than critical,

standing
,
anchor
will
penetrate
only
the
as with the more streamlined new anchors such as
slightly
the STEVFIX.
In soft soils (soft clayey silts
into the sediments and will slide in a standing
and
or tipped orientation [Figures 7.2-3(b) and (c)]
deeply [Figure 7.2-4(b)],
at
For fluke
STATO-type anchors to 60 feet for a 20,000-pound
embedment
STEVIN [as reported in Ref 7-8].
a very small
angles
less
depth
holding capacity.
than
will
be
critical,
reduced,
anchor
and
the
anchor
for
STATO
anchors
the
anchors
will
penetrate
more
in
7.2.4
Stability
the
A drag anchor may exhibit instability after
1950s [Ref 7-14] showed an optimum fluke angle
the initial biting and digging-in due to differ-
of
ences in the soil resistance encountered by the
50 degrees
"3"4 degrees
for soft mud
for
sand.
(clayey
More
silt) and
recent
tests
two
flukes,
initial
differences
(Ref 7-11] in a denser sand showed that, for the
penetration
STATO,
direction of mooring line pull,
fluke
angle
of
10 degrees
is
more
depths,
slight
in the
change
fluke
in
the
or some other
appropriate for use in sands.
Most anchors are
source of asymmetry.
manufactured
angle
often become unctable and roll after only a few
with
fluke
of
about
Drag anchors in sand will
50 degrees for soft soils, with bolted or welded
feet
wedges or inserts providing an option for fluke
the
angle
much reduced, and the force couple in the direction of the roll is increased, thus speeding the
reduction
"standard fluke
for
hard
Changes
to
angle settings may be advised to
improve performance,
"sands and
soils.
especially
gravels.
on hard,
dense
of drag.
soil
rolling
For instance, where a fluke
Once the anchor begins to ro,
pressure on the rising fluke becomes
of
7.2-5(a)].
the
anchor
on
its
side
Stocks or stabilizers
[Figure
are designed
angle change to 28 degrees may be necessary to
to develop a countering force couple to resist
initiate
the
the
biting
and
digging-in
of
Moorfast- and Offdrtll-type anchors.

Anchor penetration is influenced
anchor's
degree
of
streamlining.
The
anchor
designs
flukes,
narrowed and chamfered shanks,
with
tapered
and
large
by
roll
motion
[Figure 7.2-5(b)].
-In
soft
clays and Silts (mud), the stabilizers prpbably

provide a significant stabilizing influence only
the
newer
for the first few feet of drag,
sharpened
up to the point
where both stabilizers pass beneath the mudline.
and open
Even when fully embedded,
every drag anchor is
tripping palms have good penetration capability
potentially
and can reach stronger soils deep in the soil
seafloor surface, anchor stability is primarily
profile.
a function of the symmetry of the anchor,
An
anch-r
increase
in
penetration
fluke
and
roughness
therefore
limits
unstable.
Once
beneath
soft
the
variation in the direction of mooring line pull,
influences
and the homogeneity of the 'soil.
At present,
holding capacity.
Flukes with smooth surfaces
mobilize less soil resistance to penetration in
insuffIicient data exist to qualify the Probability of an instability developing in either
the
hard or soft soils.
plane of
penetrate
the
deeper
fluke.
Thus,
smooth flukes
and reach the
stronger soils
penetration
Instability
after
anchor
dig-in also
includes the phenomenon of anchor "balling up"
and pulling out [Ref 7-15].
This balling up
behavior of an anchor Is vastly different for

hard and for soft sol's.
In hard soils (stiff
phenomenon refers to formation of a large ball

of soil on the entire fluke and'crown assembly
which usually occur at greater depths.

At
Sclays
optimum
and
fluke
angles,,
the dense,- sands),
does not penetrate deeply.

the
anchor
seafloor
7.2-4(a)],
may
surface,
or it
remain
as
the drag anchor
(Figure 7.2-6],
Rather, the crown of

above
with
the
'a
This ball of soil
or "deed zone" travels with the anchor, distort-
[Figure
ing its shape and significantly limiting anchor
may penetrate only a few feet,
penetration
7-6
whichcan occur after dragging
5O to 200 feet in soft soils.
surrounding
STATO
from 45 feet for large
will
develop less than its maximum potential holding

capacity in that particular environment.
Data -gathered
clays)
7. ,
capability
and
its
stability.
Drag distance in feet

30
10
20
40
so
(a) Anchor in hard soils; 6,000-4b STATO in dense

uand: 32 degfluke angle (data from Ref 7-11)
'Or
Drag distance in feet

20
lo1
30
40
path takens by anchor
.~~
............
.
iank.odaerradon
3: 10-AI
.0
20(b)
Anchor in soft soils; 6,0004lb STATO in clayey sat

50 deg fluke angew, with mud palm extensions (data
hrow Ref 7-11)
Figure 7.2-4. Penetration and orientation behavior of an anchor in hard and soft seafloors
*(a) Unstabilized anchor rolling

inmnd (after Ref 7-9)
(b) Properly stabilized anchor

in aind (after Re(7-8)
Figure 7.2-5. Forces on unstabilized and stabilized anchors in sand.
\,.%7-7
so
capacity in a much shorter
achieve their maximu
"drag
distance because
developed ,by
these
the soil
anchors
shear surfaces
are
substantially
greater per unit fluke area than those developed

,
by the newer streamlined anchors.
This will be
apparent in Section 7.5.3.1.
___..
""
of an
_"Soaking"
period
of
that
time,
makes
~causing
to rotational instability will not re-embed with

Sfurther dragging.
It must be recovered and
typically
24 hours,
(i.e.,
u
clay soil
strengthening
The process for development of this balling
before
The mechanism
'"
so~aking work is similar to that
balling up
silt and
Scleaned before it can be reset.
up is hypothesized as follows.
the practice of
the required proof load.
anchor that rises to the surface due
".'
anchor is
allowing a newly embedded anchor to rest for a
Figure 7.2-6. Anchor in soft soil, after balling-up and

~~pulling-out
(from Ref 7-15).
pl
ou(m
e75applying
balled-up
Soaking
7.2.5
consolidation
ci
around the
of that
fluke,
of the
causing
soil and increasing the
anchor's holding capacity with time).
The soil in the
dead zone is subjected to a high total stress

"-and the soil develops large positivw excess pore
~7.3
SITE INVESTIGATION
T
"E
water pressures.
In silt to clayey silt soils

some of this excess pore water pressure
(muds),
dissipates to the surrounding soils as the

"anchor drags. The soil inmediately in front of
A.
Although
results
the flukes, therefore, becomes stronger than the

u
r
la and is able tootmethodology
undisturbed
soil
adhere to andX
P-'"
build up on the flukes to become a large, compact lump.
The balling-up phenomenon has been reported
with
[Ref 7-13]
STATO,
LWT,
anchor.
Performance
orientation
differences
fluke with
of, the
in
lie
Drag
than the
in
the STATO's
toward
a rational
for determining the capacity of drag

present
technology
cannot utilize
design
anchor
usually
consists
of
This selec-
Topography and thickness of significant

soil layers
Sediment type (cohesive versus
cohesionless)
e Undrained shear strenqth for cohesive
soils
the soil
fluke surface of the more streamlined
Hook anrhor.
work
the
of site conditions:
a
trajectory
initial
present
tion and sizing requires the following knowledge
the
more obliquely
its
does
selecting an anchor type and size.
anchor trajectory [Ref 7-12, 7-11].

The STATO
fluke surface for instance, is oriented much
to
chapter
detailed soil strength and behavior information

for drag anchor design.
to the
respect
this
Moorfast
and
of
~anchors,
but not wltn the more streamlined BOSS
anchors,
Site Data Needed
7.3.1
This more oblique orientation and

large,
tripping palms are believed

responsible for a tendency to ball up in some
7.3.2
soft soils. The fluke, tripping palo, and shank

streamlining of the nower anchors (e.g., BOSS,
Hook, STEVNUO, and Flipper Delta) are respon-
Knowledge of topography and sediment thickness at the proposed anchor locations is neces-,
"sible
for
happening.
reducing
the
potential
for
this
sary for determining whether or not drag anchors

can work at a given site. First, topography is
feature associated with balling

anchors with this characteristic
an indicator of seafloor material type.

Irregular or rugged topography may indicate outcrop-
"Apositive
up
is
that
Topooraphy and Layer Thickness
7-8
. .
. . . . . . . ..
..
"
",
ping of rock or hard strata or the existence of
depth of about one fluke length in dense sands
boulders or talus.
Drag anchors should not be
expected to function well, if at all, at such
sites.
Second, topography indicates the bottom
and to three to six fluke lengths in soft clays

and silts [see Table 7.3-1].
For less dense
sands penetration will be slightly more deep,
slope
gradient
at
the
anchor
location.
An
and for stronger clays and silts the penetration
anchor being pulled downslope will have a lower
will be less deep than indicated on Table 7.3-1.
holding
This table can be used to gauge the depth to
capacity
than if
it
were pulled on a
horizontal surface in the same soil.

rational and definitive procedures,
mended
that
the
siting
of
In lieu of
it
drag
which
is recom-
anchors
site
investigation
needed.
The
be
indicate sediment thickness requirements of 15

to 20 feet in dense sands and 60 to 80 feet in
and,
the soft clays and silts.
where it
is
practical,
to slopes
of less
degrees.
Techniques and equipment for obtaining the
Topography is also important in the design
necessary soils data are discussed in Chapter 2.
of the total mooring system. Overall topography

may limit anchor placement
locations,
and
affects
the
required
lengths
of
the
7.3.3
mooring
legs,
mooring
leg
loads,
Data on sediment type (clay,
and
selection of anchor type and for sizing.
oSediment
thickness data are necessary to
determine'that sufficient depth exists to permit
"where
anchor
the
developed.
penetration
maximum
Drag
to
holding
anchors
information
can
sometimes
be
directly from subbottom acoustic
equilibrium depth,
experienced
capacity
samples are required
will
will
penetrate
Table 7.3-1.
be
to a
and
index
personnel.
property
But,
testing
Normalized Fluke Tip

Penetration, (dt/L)max
Anchor Type
.-
Cohesiornless
Cohesive Soils
(soft clays
and silts)
Soils
(dense sands)
Stockless (movable fluke)
Stockless (fixed fluke)
Moorfast
Offdrill
BOSS
BRUCE Cast
ODanforth
LWT (Lightwelght)
4-1/2
"STATO/NAVMOOR
STEVFIX
Hook
STEVPJO
7.9
%*
This
interprete
records by
more often,
for visual
Estimated Maximum Fluke Tip Penetration of 'Some

Drag Anchor Types in Hard and Soft Soils
-.
BRUCE, Twin Shank
silt, or sand)
and consistency (soft or hard) are necessary for
allowable anchor displacements.,
full
Sediment Type and Strength
mooring
legs, the proportions of chain and wire rope in

those
"*
is
limited to downslopes of no more than 10 degrees
"than 5
ratios for the larger drag anchors-, for example,
soil
classification
(see
Chapter 3).
In
most
Instances,
from
samples
short
gravity corers will provide the necessary sediment for determining classification and consistency data.
Acoustic survey data will usually
suffice to characterize the sediments over the
expected
depth
of
penetration
of
the
IDENTIFY
MOrN&SYTM
ADKTAIL
anchor,
I.111E
2.
provided the acoustic data show no significant

sediment
layering
or
FROIGLG
SDATA
SU]FFICIENT
FOR
ARE
ICIE
O
ANM SIZING?
SELECTiON
surficial
strength over the full anchor penetra-
soil
UPED
tion cepth.
In
those
stratigraphy
where
situations
is
complicated,
taken
the
sediment
from samples
as,
for
example,
Where
thin 5- to 10-foot-thick layer of soft

overlies a hard layer, the anchor may drag
in
in the
NO
following
penetrate
TASK
III
SOUST SURVEY
I SITE
PHAS
ACOUSTIC
SURVEY
1. 1.S-KHZ
| IMP SURFACE
z. SURFICIAL
SANWING
BY
GRAVITY
corER:,
CORER
instances.
TO OUVELOP
RATASUFFICIENT
tmu
SIL PROFILE TO IS FT FOR HARD
AD60FT FORSOFTSEAFLOOR?
(I.E.. O LAYERING
PRORLEMS?)
but be unable to
into the underlying hard material.
,oI
drag anchor will also have some problems where a

thin 2- to 5-foot layer of sand overlies a soft
sand
or
clay
bottom
anchor
to
initiate dig-in.
then
will
However,
develop a
not
sn
the
PHASE IIA SI TE SURVEY
PHASE ITS Ste SURVEY
1. DEEP
TON
3. -EKHZ
S. MAYREQUIRE
DEEPTON3.S-,Z
TODELINEATE
HARD
dRREGhlLAR
SURFACE
TOPOGRAPHY]
Soil samples of the entire soil profile to

identify
will
2.
problems
AND IRREGULAR
SURFICIAL SEDIMEII
LAYER
THICENESS
SAMPLIING
BYLARGE
GVITY
TOPOGRAPHY
IRREGULAR
2.
FT OF WATER:
LESS
THAN 100
VIBRACORER
BEST
JEER 100 FT OF WATER: LAE
GRAVITYPISTON CORERWITH
2O-FTAARREL
PISTON
selection of the most
such as these and help in
suitable drag anchor type and size.
REEO SOIL
PRFLEI"""
7.3.4. Site Investigation Summary
Figure 7.3-1
.
presents
developing a geotechnical
"drag anchor
design.
to
It
accomplish
a
site
chart
flow
Figure 7.3-1. Site survey plan decision flow chart.
for'
survey plan for
may. be advantageous or
some
of
the
on-site
necessary
-"
tasks according to a different schedule based on
.+
cost of the survey and positioning equipment and
"*
the vessel support.
known site conditions or on the availability and
7-10
ACOUSTICSURVEYTO DELINEATE
ACOUSTICSURVEY
high holding
potential
CONISETCH?
Xt
capacity in the, underlying soft material.

be penetrated
SL
this soil
In
strata.
Yes
-
-WAY
condition,
for a
the anchor fluke angle may have to be set
silt
YES
the soft surficAal material
RV
soil data may be

from deeper depths
required
soil
YES
samples can be used to develop usable prediction

of
sZ
SEDIMENTLAYERTHICKNESS
DEPTHTDIMNEREALE STRATA
the planned
the
on
1. TOPOGRAPHY
EIETTP
AOCNITNY
2. SEDIMENT
TYPEANDCONSISTENCY
3.
4
LOACPER LEG
In homogeneous soils,
measured
parameters
sediment
over
changes
drag path of tne anchor.
SITI ATA
AVAILALE:
l.REQUIREMENTS:
NUMBER
OFOIqKtNG
LEGSI
4'
"''
7.4
SELECTING A DRAG ANCHOR
To
aid
the
anchor
selection
process,
Table 7.4-1 rates important anchor types, based

7.4.1
General
on
reports
of
field experience with prototype
anchors and on test findings with small anchors.

Designing
"process in
an anchor
system is
a two-step
Separate
which:
ratings
reliability
stability
One or more drag anchor types are

selected for use based on expected
overall performance, availability, and
cost.
---
,to
given
dig-in
for
(1) tripping
performance,
setting
(2)
roll
dragging,
and
and
(3) holding capacity "efficiency" (the ratio of

holding capacity to anchor air weight).
The
anchors
each
and
during
are
The selected
type
is thenholding-'
sized
develop anchor
the
required
captoydevelo
tbeen
are rated as high,
category.
Where
data
medium,
or low for
on
particular
anchor type are not complete, the ratings have

partly based on the performance of geo-
capacity.
metrically similar anchor types.

Table 7.4-1.
Rating of Drag Anchor Types based on Tripping and

Dig-In, Roll Stability,.and Holding Capacity
Efficiency
Reliability or Holding Capacity in--
Anchor Type
Cohesive Soils
(clays and silts)
Tripping/
Holding
Dig-In
Stocklessb
(movable fluke)
Stocklessb
(fixed fluke)
"G.S.
Danforth
LWT
STATOd/NAVMOOR
""
Cohesionless Soilsa
(sands)
Tripping/
Holding
StablityStability
Stability
Capacity
Dig-In
Low
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
High
Low
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low
High
Medium
Mediumk
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
High
Medium
High
High
Moorfast
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Offdrill II
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
STEVIN
Medium
STEVFIX
Low
Low
High
STEVPRIS
STEVDIG
S.
Medium
Medium
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
High
High
STEVMU0
High
High
"BOSS
High
Medium
High
High
Hook
High
High
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
BRUCE Cast
High
High
Low
High
High
High
BRUCE Twin Shank
High
High
High'
High
High
Insufficient data available for rating.

dAnchor fluke angle set at 30 deg for sand.
Anchor not normally used in this seafloor condition.
7.11
'..
Medium
c
aAnchor fluke angle set at manufacturer's recommendation for sand.

bwith stabilizers (ratings not as high without stabilizers).
Capacity
Medium
Flipper Delta
,.
r,
e
High
These ratings can also be expected to vary for

those soil profiles which are more complex.
Tripping and Penetration Performance
7.4.2
set
angles,
to
according
soil' anchor,
soft
for
recommendations
holding-
highest
the
has
specialized
the STEVMUO,
silts),
and
clays
for anchors with fluke
are
dig-in performance
consolidated soft
In soft soils (normally
The ratings in Table 7.4-1 on tripping and
highest
in
holding capacity efficiency 'are
the
Next
ratio.
cohesive soils (clays and silts) or cohesionless

(Mud palms are used
soils (sand), respectively.
capacity-to-weight
for the STATO on soft clay.)
streamlined, deep-digging anchors of substantial
developed
If the anchor is
Cast large
Twin Shank, and'the STEYFIX anchors.
installed using two work plat-
anchors
of
type
and Offdrill II
the Moorfast
efficiencies
capacity
holding
lower
BRUCE
HOOK,
including the STATO,
area,
fluke
the tripping/dig-in rating
In soft clays,
also a function of the installation method.
is
forms to keep the flukes open before touchdown
exhibit
as shown in Figure 7.2-2,
then most anchors will
because
trip and dig in properly.
However, some anchors
penetrate as deeply in the sediment profile, and
roll
because their fluke areas per pound of steel are
still
may
stability
roll
limited
with
streamlined and do not
they are less
"
..
smaller.
Once back at
du'ring setting and may pull out.,
'..
In send,
the seafloor surface the probability of anchor
and STATO
BOSS,
(cast and twir shank),
BRUCE
re-embedment would be small.
STEYPRIS,
STEVOIG,
the STEVFIX,
anchors all perform quite well, with no signifi-
Offdrill 11
The stability performance ratings presented

in Table 7.4-1 are based on recent field tests
where the anchors were instrumented to measure
7-12]
[Ref 7-11,
'rate
to
stability
is
the
small
treated
be
should
ratings
Selection of Anchor Type
7.4.5
the
and
in nature,
Selection of the anchor type to be used for
best
a given mooring should be based in large part on
as
the
subject to revision as more data
estimate--one
to tht: anchor
ratings
holding
Table 7.4-1
capacity
consider
ratings
other
very ' important
(1)
availability,
of some of the anchor types in comparative field
(3)
transportation,'
7-11)
[Ref 7-12,
performance
on
the
based
(4) vessel
space
require-
"
similarity to those which were

7.5
holding
on
is
capacity
capac ty
ratings
can
be
7.5.1
expected
and
drag
the
anchor
performance
of drag anchor capacities
has traditionally been by empirical approaches.
capability
predictive
Efficien"y Ratio Method

The prediction
to
change and become more well defined as technical

Understanding
SIZING A DRAG ANCHOR
highly
generalized al o because it is based on performance in tio uncomplicated soil profiles. These
regarding
of
ments, and (5) handling ease.
predicted
This presentation of drag anchor
field tested.
holding
factors
for the other anchor' types based on
their geometri
rating
and
the,
(2) hardware. purchase price,
are estimates based on the measured performance

tests
for each of
types
performance characteristics to provide a "score"

The designer must also
for each anchor type.
Holding Capacitv Performancc.

The
The
discussed.
considerations' previously
designer may wish, to apply weighted numerical
becom, available.
7.4.4
high as
on model
are based
stability of an anchor is statistical
not as
but
those developed by the anchors of newer design.
Since the number of anchor tests
tests in sand.
used
or
as exhibiting
projected
type are
holding capacities,
good
and
Moorfast
the
of
anchors
bilateral
roll
The cast,
cant differences apparent among then.
Stability Performance
7.4.3
That
improve.
is,
holding capiaity
is based on field
The most widely used
experience with amchors.

7-12
-.
'.o .
.-
,.
..-.
..
.
-..- ...
%
.. .*.
%" .
....
...
-.
o.
:T. ........ "%-%
. .
.."-.
.-
-%
...-
"...-.
"of
these
ratio
method.
efficiency.
horizontal
the
approaches
In
is
the
this
e, is
simple efficiency
method,
defined
as a
the
7.5.2
anchor's
ratio
of
the
The power law method is recommended for use
load resistance developed divided by
anchor's weight
(also
Power Law Method
as
called the "holding-
the best method for predicting the holding
capacity of drag-embedeent
capacity-to-weight ratio"),
for the
"with
here:
HM = holding capoacity (horizontal

resistance at the seafloor)
It
accounts
nonlinear increase in holding capacity

anchor
increasing
air weight
[Ref 7-1].
"M(7-)
This method produces a strafght-line relationship between 'anchor holding capacity and anchor
weight on a log-log plot.
The validity of the
load
power law method has .1een demonstrated in field

tests [Ref 7-i5, 7-1FI.
WA
-w
anchors.
WA = wight of t" anchor in air
Expressed
as
an
equation,
the
holding
capacity, HM, is detetitned by:

This method
efficiency
a"staes that the drag anchor
is 'a constant for a given soil type
"M2
=
Rb
over a wide range of atichor sizes (weigh'ts).

It
also assumes tha. the moorirg leg is properly
designed and the aiichor is properly installed
where:
and the anchor is dragged the necessary distance

to, develop its maximum holdirg capacity.
The efficiency ratio method remains widely
S.by
",000
WA
lb(-2
(7-2)
R
)
HR = holding'capacity of a 10,000-lb air
weight version of the reference
WA = anchor weight in pounds for which
HM is to be determined
b = an exponent constant depending on
the anchor
and soil
used because of its simlicity and fimiliarity

within the user community.
However, comprehensive field tests have shown that the method
may produce unsafe holding capacity predictions
for large anchors.
In these tests, the efficiency was shown to decrease with increasing
anchor weight [Ret 7-1].
Therefore, if an
efficiency cLnstant was used to project anchor
holding capacity for a larger anchor, the projecticn would overpredict that capacity.
"Todevelop the holding capacities predicted
by Equation 7-1 or by the two anchor holding
capacity
'rtedictive
techniques
given
in
Sections 7.5.2 and ;.5.3, the mooring line
tehsion wist be app'ied to the anchor system IN
A DIRECTION PARALL. TO THE SEAFLOOR.
This Is
accomplished,
in a r. OePr design, by using
Anchor 'holding capacity field test data

have been used to develop values for HR and b
used in Equation 7-2. These data were obtained
from 1950 NCEL testing of Navy Stockless, STATO,
and LWT anchors [Ref 7-14. 7-17 through 7-20];
from Exxon Production Research testing ef LUT
and BOSS anchors [Ref 7-15, 7-16]; from 1979-80
NCEL 'testing of Navy Stockless. ST.TO. Moorfast.
BRUCE. and STEVIN family anchors [Ref 7-12,
7-11]; and from some offshore industry tests.
The test data and previous interpretations
[Ref 7-1. 7-15, 7-16) have resulted in the
values of HR and b shown in Table 7.5-1 for a
wide range of drag anchors used in cohesive anc
cohesionless soils. Table 7.5-1 and Equation 7-;
can be used to predict the holding capacity for
sufficient chain weige.t (sometimes accompanid

a concrete sinker weight) in the mooring line
leg to keep the chain angle zero even at the
highest load conditicn. In additirn to this, an
any weight of the anchors listed. The mioorinj

leg. which includes the anchor, however, must bo
properly designed and the anchors must be prOpterly installed. Figures 7.5-1 ind 7.5-2 are
extra 'shot (90 feet) of heavy chain is often

added at the anchor end to ensure that some
chain remains on the seafloor.
graphical' presentation
of the data
fror
Table 7.5-1 for cohesive soils (clays and silts
and cohesionless soils (sands), respectively.
7.13
Table 7.5-1.
Parameters HR and b Used in Equation 7-2:

00
lb)b
HR( WA/IH,
Anchor Typea
Cohesive Soils
(clays
and silts)
Chsols
Soils (sands)
(ki s)
215
32
0.92
0.92
0189
.92
250
250
260
0.8
0.8
0.8
87
139
0.92
0.92
126.
-.
0.75
c
87
0.92
126
0.75
189
87
87
0.92
0.92
0.32
82
126
6
100
Offdrill 1I
87
0.92
60
STATO/NA0OR
215
0.92
d
100
250e
0.75
0.75
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
STEVDIG
STEVFTX
0.8
0.8
STEMNJO
236
0'. 92
0.92
0.92
0.92
290
290
STEVIN
139
189
139
stockless (fixed fluke)
..
46
0.92
Stockless '(movable fluke)
24
0.92
_(kis)
BOSS
BRUCE Cast
BRUCE Twin Shank
Danforth
Flipper Delta
G.S. (AC-14)
Hook
LWT (Lightweight)
Noorfast
"STEVPRIS
ff
--
290
70
0.8
0.8
449
70
0.8
P-g
aFluke angles set for 50 dog in soft soils and according to manufacturers' specifications in hard soils, except when otherwise noted.
is an exponent constant in Equation 7-2 and not a footnote.
CNo data available.
~b"V
dFor 28-dog fluke angle.

*For 30-dag fluke angle (STATO).
fAnchor not used in this seafloor condition.
gFor 48-dg fluke angle.
7-14
Cmbesive soils (days and solts)

HM m t ultimate capacity -apply
tO et
i.m ope.a,*
load
factor of safety
700
Fluke angles set at iSo for soft soils
60
soo
'Anchors require special bandlin (posaiily fixed

flukes) to ensure tripping ini soft soils
400
300..4
1P
A.A
100
9U
~7
C
44
40
'
30
23
(~.Anth.,
14
6 7
89 o2030
Air Weigh. WA '(KIPS)
Figure 7.5.1'. Anchor chain system holding capacity at the rmudigne in soft soils.
Cohesionless soils (sands)

H M is the ultimate capacity
to determine operating load
-Apply
factor of safety
1000
.r..
177
.:
.:2::.~...
800
Fluke angles set for sand as per
manufacturer's specifications
except as noted
600
400
ACO
Cw
100
aN
30
AshoArWigs
Fi~~~~~~jr.~~Net
nh cansse
7 .
odn
A(IS
aaItyatcwo
themudl
. ..........
. . . . .
. .
inveyhard is
. .. .
It
is
noted
that the curves
Flipper
diameter
wire rope should allow the anchor to
penetrate
deeper
into stronger soils,
but have been estimated,
increased
anchor
resistance
In Figure 7.5-1,
holding
.
for the
Delta anchors are, not the result of field tests
capacity
the
of drag
consolidated clays
curves
describe
anchors
expected
in normally
and cohesive silts.
curves were developed directly

holding capacities.
Note the
the
from
to compensate
for
and an
at that depth
is
any
in
reduction
resistance from the smaller mooring line.
These
measured
difference
7.5.3
Analysis Based on Geotechni..,
in
Considerations
performance for the Stockless anchor with flukes
"in
both
fixed
and
movable
positions.
The
movable,
will
drag anchor holdiig capacity based on geotech-
capacity
of the anchor
nical considerations is not presently available.
flukes fixed at 50 degrees
in soft soils
The prediction of drag anchor and mooring line
Stockless,
"develop
with
flukes
only half the
left
A complete
""
with
penetration
"..
(Ref 7-21].
Figure 7.5-2 presents an interpretation of
data from field tests
""
in
cal considerations for anchors embedded in soft
mance of an anchor type for all types and densi-
soils.
ties
holding capacity is presented here for use with
sands.
A more
for these
accurate
variations
has
predictive
not yet been
ties should remain about the same.

tive
curves of
7.5.3.1
The predic-
"ties,
in
ments,
7.5-1, parameters were assigned to
to
slightly
anchors
will
In this
the drag anchors can be expected to

behave similar to deeply embedded plate anchors.
their
Drag anchor flukes differ considerably in

plan shape.
In order to adequately
the anchor fluke dimensions.
The power
law method,
as used here,
includes both buried chain .and anchor holding
capacity, but makes no separate accounting of
ity. of
HA
anchor
where:
the projected plan area of the different shapes, a correction factor is applied to
method
a
Nc(f
drag
anchor
is
The holding capacthen expressed as:
L) su
(7-3)
N a a constant, depending nn the

failure
mode around
the ['see
anchor and
on
the anchor
geometry
Taole 7.5-a ]
Table 7.5-1 (Ref 7-21].

The use of wire rope
for the embedded portion of the mooring lin
SIELI
despite the smaller' projected area of comparable
f = correction factor converting the

rectangular area B x L to the
actual'projected fluke area [see
'Table 7.5-2]
width of fluke [see Figur 7.1-5]
L a length of fluke [see Figure 7.1-5]
[L]
shear strength'of
cohesive soil at center of area
"of anchor [F/Lz]
chain, is not expected to significantly reduce

a
o
sym
cundrained
anchor system holding capacity.
The smaller
."
Cohesive
in these sediments..
capacity.,
The
Soft
consolidated
Drag-embedment
describe
contributions.
for
situation,
Larger chain sizes may develop somewht higher

holding capacities than those predicted by using
"
normally
penetrate deeply
assumes that the chain size used is compatible

with the holding capacity to be developed.
""
are
behave like one of the other anchors which were

tested and to have similar values of holding
chain
anchor
where the depth of ppne-
Calculations
overconsolidated.
the Odnforth, G.S., Offdrill II, Flipper

and STEVIN have each been assumed to
and
calculating
Most
soft
cohesive
seafloors,
defined as mud or soft silt to clay size sedi-
some anchor types where'data were not available

to develop curves.
Based on geometric similariDelta,
for
Seafloors.
all hard seafloors).
"InTable
technique
tration is known.
Figure 7.5-2 are also believed
applicable in very stiff to hard clays (i.e.,
The
an established anchor,
While the holding capacity developed
with a given anchor is expected to vary somewhat

with sand type and, density, the relative capaci-
, '"
capa-
recent work has improved the
ability to predict capacity based on geotechni-
'developed.
*
S-
beyond present analytical
However,
of
sand types.
scheme
__
is
prediction
Only one curve is used to describe the perforof
several
bility.
method for the
7.17
Table 7.5-2.
Parameters N and f Used for Clays and

Cohesive Silis in Equation 7-3:
HA = Nc(f B L) su
Anchor Type
Nc
Stockless, fixed flukes
13.0
0.54
Oanforth
1a
0.60
LWT
11a
0.60
STATO/NAVHOORb
12
0.95
Moorfast
12
0.95
Offdrill II
12
0.95
STEVFIX
6.4
0.72
STEVMUD
6.8
0.77
"Hook
"BRUCE Cast
6.2
0.80
4.0
0.36
BRUCE Twin Shank
6.5
0.52
aEstimated values.
"bNAVMOOR has a configuration similar to that of the
STATO anchor.
This predictive equation does not provide a
maximum holding capacity occurs even before the
complete solution to the problem of designing a

mooring system because the depth of penetration
entire fluke is embedded. Presently, a predictive equation which uses geotechnical considerations isnot available.
Smates
of the drag anchor/chain system is beyond presant predictive capability (save for the estishown in Table 7.3-1).
For established
,*
""
7.5.4 Factor of Safety
anchors, where anchor penetration can be measure4 from a pendant line, Equation 7-3 can be
utilized for evaluating the holding capacity.
.Equation 7-3 predicts rnly the holding
The holding capacities predicted in the

previous sections can be considered minimum
ultimate holding capacities for design purposes.
capacity developed at the shank-to-mooring-line

connection point.
The section of mooring line
When selecting an anchor size, a factor of

safety must be applied to the design loading to
embedded in the seafloor by the penetrating drag

anchor makes a significant contribution to the
anchor system's holding capacity.
Based on
available field data [Ref 7-12, 7-11],
the
mooring' line contribution, HC, in soft muds can
arrive at 'a required minimum ultimate holding

capacity.
It is recommended that a safety
factor of 1.S be applied to the peak load from
survival conditions, such- as the 100-year storm.
A factor of safety of 2.0 is rerommended for all
be conservatively estimated to be 0.2 HA.
conditions during which operations might be

on-going. These recommendatiuns follow those of
7.5.3.2 Considerations for Sands and Stiff

Clays.
Field measurements [Ref 7-12, 7-11,
the API [Ref 7-23] for pile design and are

recommended to ensure the anchor drags before
7-22] show that drag anchors do not penetrate

deeply in sand and stiff clays.
Often the
the moring lhine breaks.
7--IS
7.6
TROUBLESHOOTING
anchors and
identified several penetration
and
stability problems that could occur in the use

ing
Section 7.5 offers techniques for predict-
of drag-embedment
the
marizes
potential
embedment anchors,
and
stability
holding
of
the
drag
anchor
functioning
Section 7.2 discussed the
""
capacity
of
drag-
assuming proper penetration
Table 7.6-1.
system.
in
anchors.
This
section
these problems and potential
a. troubleshooting
procedure.
sum-
solutions
These
are
outlined in Table 7.6-1.
of drag
Troubleshooting Procedures for Correcting Drag Anchor

Performance Problems
"Pr
e
Problem
Troubleshooting Procedures a for-Cohesive Soils
-Failure to
Initiate
Penetration
1.
2.
3.
Cohesionless Soils
Proper setting
procedure used?
Fix fluke in open
position
Increase stabilizer
length,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sharpen flukes
Reduce fluke angle to a minimum 27 deg
Increase stabilizer
length
Place barbs on
tripping palms
Fix fluke open
Crush hardened
surface soil with
"explosives
Failure to
Develop Expected
Holding Capacity
1.
2.
3.
Recover and clean;

check for balling
up; clean off mud
ball
Reset and soak
"24 hr
Piggyback or change
"to larger anchor
Increase stabilizer
length
2. Reduce fluke angle to a minimum 27 deg
3. Piggyback or change
to larger anchor
1.
aTroubleshooting procedures-listed in order of recozi/ended

implementation.
"'7.6.1
Soft Sediments
setting procedure [Figure 7.2-2].

support
prevents
use
of this
When limited
procedure,
then
Drag
anchors
in
soft
seafloors
may
enconter (1) tripping problems, (2) instability
problems, or (3) inability to develop sufficient
correction of a tripping problem requires fixing

of the anchor fluke in its open position and,
possibly, the lengthening of stabilizers to help
holding capacity' without allowing for sediment

strength
, gain
through
anchor
soaking.
Figure 7.6-1 Illustrates the effects of tripping
right the anchor [Figure 7.2-5(b)).
and
In
Instability
problems
on the
line tension
Instability problems are suggested by a

rise 'in the line tension followed by a fall to
the
"failure-to-trip
level"
[curve b
in
"
developed
while setting an anchor. Failure to
trip and initiate penetration is suggested when
Figure 7.6-1].
When 'the anchor behaves in this
manner and fails to develop adequate capacity,
linetwo
tension remains nearly constant at one-half
"to
times the combined weight of the anchor
the
recovered
cleaned.
In
soft anchor
soil, should
it is be
likely
that and
a mud
ball has
and the amunt of mooring
formed on the anchor flukes.
(curve
are
in Figure 7.6-1].
line, on the seabed

Tripping problems
normally avoided by using a proper anchor

ire
fluke
angle
should be
should~~7.9
b
should
resetrand
-rstaddage
be
In hard soils,
reduced.
dragged
the
The, anchor
until
nt
the
h
line
tn
(a) Stable anchor performance
"K,
;,
80 100
'
............
(b) Instability failure
- 60-/
r','
(0c)Tripping failure
..
60
15
10
30
25
20
40
35
Drag disance
Figure 7.6-1. Typical performance of drag anchors when operating properly and improperly.
stabilizer
The
its prior peak value.
approaches
tension
If
anchor allowed to soak for 24 hours.
beneficial
this
"required line
larger anchors
then
tension cannot be developed,

must
anchor
original
Should
stability.
the
these
line
required
steps
tension,
be
anchors will
or piggybacked
will require shifting to use of a pile.
piggybacked
be
fluke
the
In extreme cases sufficient anchorage
required.
an anchor of higher capacity will be required or

the
to
in gaining
fail
not possible or if, after soaking, the
delay is
of
A decrease
length.
increase penetration has also proven
angle to
line tension should then be slacked off and the
(Section 7.7).
penetration,
Tripping,
PIGGYBACKING
7.7
Hard Sediments
7.6.2
and
Field Practice
7.7.1
instability
problems can occur on hard seafloors (including

all sands,
is enhanced
dig-in
or
tion
angle
fluke-to-shank
to
as
by
When
Tripping is
and hard clay).
gravel,
as
first
27 degrees and increasing the stabilizer length

to
keep
the
anchor
from sliding on
In extreme
[Figure 7.2-3].
cases,
have
charges
have
been
crush the material
used
on
these
surfaces
the
it is
in-line,
and beyond the
This
primary anchor.
is called
existing pendant
line
surface buoy from the pendant line wire rope of

the first anchor [see Figure 7.7-1] and reattach
the line to a second anchor.
to
is
in front of the anchor and
lowered ar.t
then
so.
Tho second anchor
oy a second
pendant
anchor
line, while the line to the first anchor is kept

Sometimes it is necessary to
tightly stretched.
in hard seafloors- is increasing the
retrieve the first anchor, attach a heavier wire
provide an area for fluke embedment.

The priary
stability
or
tors. simply detach the
On some hard surfaces (e.g.,
weak rock) these measures cited to

Shaped
penetration will not suffice.
or
initiate
develop
In the offshore oil industry, many contrac-
tripping aoment, and flukes have been fixed in

coral
not.
a piggyback anchor varies.
been added to the tripping palms to increase the

the open position.
will
piggyback anchor, and sometimes called a tandem

The procedure for installing
or backup anchor.
its side
barbs
moring leg,
the sam
to
25
anchor
common practice to install a second. anchor on
the
reducing
small
an
required capacity on being proof-loaded,
Penetra-
enhanced by sharpening the fluke tips.
means
for
increasing
7-20
.............................. )-~
-a
spring bouy
Figar 7.71.
A endat lpeandan wioaranemes frsmsbesbls(rmRf72
20fpedant
recoverve
thekl
p0,i0ary
Whn
wire
fo
usn
anchr.
chaser
syse.~ sthe piggybhacki
cornttce
above technniqes, the priar anchors

bkanchors
rbcking
isdrngd
seth bothnanho
woan fhsromaerwrefo
inselowered. Thnoe cavy,
available~~~sahe
anhoanvntrdlaingn
igy
theesr
chshir
moorings.
ihcpct
thechniques fo
emnn
sn primary anchors.We
laynghri
attamoor
adire77Cancaserd
to 10ieesin
ho
abnv leghninuewather dpthsar
pi1
[he
crane baorge hisave bee demnt ratbeoed
7.21
______
anho
is.
loerd
Th
Nay
working.,
from
usetoaiseist anchor
deploymen andsreovery
7.7.2
*
*
-anchors
*
-flukes
*tension
Results and Field Problems
~~~at
the back
of the fluke where possible or at.,
-.
the crown end of the shank. This produces mixed

results, illustrated by Figure 7.7-3. With many
used in this arrangement, the line
-in tes
frm te pggybck nchr wil cuseflukes
tenson romthepigybak
acho wil cuseprimary
rotation and breakout of the primary anchor
[Ref 7-25]. With other anchors, this arrangePent works fine and results in a piggyback
system capacity equal to or greater than the sum
of the holding capacities of the two anchors
~~loaded separately [Ref 7-26]. Once dislodged,*'
however, primary anchors with movable flukes and
with load applied directly to the anchor crown
will not dig in again, but will slide with the
held parallel to the shank by the line
applied
at
the
pendant
padeye
[Figure 7.7-3(a)].
Navy tests in sand and orid
have
shown
that the procedure
shown by
Figure 7.7-3(b) is suitable provided the inbound
anchor is very stable (e.g., BRUCE. Hook, STATO,
NAVMOOR) and anchor flukes are prevented from
closing up under load. Ancho-s whose center of
fluke area is close to the fluke-to-shank connection point (e.g., Danforth, LWT, STEVIN
-ment
*
-
Swhen
1-the
*
*.of
W
*or
(a Pigbc.nhratchdt edn aiy

of moveble fluke (primary) anchor. ResuIW
of pmunsl sauchor held paralle to shank;
semue only as deadweight anchor.
.
.'-.
..
.--
..
(b)
Piggback anchorattached topendant psadye
of fixed mancho. Remsks.m prknaiy and=o
oetto
ludadhligcpct eue
frmmthatof siengicahor.
*<:-:
*
*.
*
f,
*.-
(c)Plarbak anchor attachednewishackle end of

primary undict shank Reauiw both piggback
Wvi~ nlo evopfl odn aaiy
Figure
7.7-a.
Tandsm/piggybacic anchor arrangements

(from Ref 7-25).
show that the anchors tend to come together, and

that load equalization between anchors is a
problem ERef 7-191. Once the anchors do come
together they will foul and will not re-embed.
If used in this manner, the parallel anchors
should be staggered by using different length
chain legs to avoid anchor Inteirference. Navy
7-22
-:
..
the line to the piggyback is attached to

shackle 'end, of the shank of the primary
anchor (Figure 7. 7-3(c)). The holding capacity
of the anchors attached this way reached tte sum
the holding capacities of the individual
anchors. This' attachment techniq~ue should be
used only with fixed-fluke anchors to minimize,
potential for fouling of the second anchor wire
chain with the primary anchor (Raf '7-25].
Parallel tandem anchor arrangements have
been suggested (Figure 7.7-4]. Full-scale tests
.2.~2'
-~
~~-.:
anchors and are not appropriate for shank-topiggyback connections.

For those anchors where the crown attach(of the piggyback anchor) creates problems,
model tests have shown that primary anchor
stability will not be significantly affected
:*,.
.. '.
types, Flipper Delta) are inherently less stable.
-crown
.*.
i.:
.
primary anchor
piggyback anchor
The results from piggybacking are strongly

dependent on how the primary and secondary
anchors are attached to 'the mooring line.
~~~Pendant lines are usually attached to the anchor.-.
7.8
REFERENCES
7-1.
Design manual:
ties,
Naval
Engineering
Command,
D.C.,
Washington,
Jul
1968.
construction,
for the design,
"Rules
7-2.
Facilities
DM-26.
NAVFAC
Harbor and coastal facili-
and
inspection of offshore structures," Appendix E

of
Hydrostatic
Norske Veritas.
"7-3.
Rules
Stability
Anchoring,
Oet
Oslo, Norway, 1977.
for building
and
classing
New
units.
drilling
offshore
and
York,
mobile
N.Y.,
American Bureau of Shipping, 1980.

7-4.
API recommended practice for the analysis
of spread mooring systems for floating drilling

units, American Petroleum Institute, API RP 2P.
Dallas, Tex.,
.'-'...
"7-5.
M.A.
Nay 1981.
'Spread mooring systems,"
Childers.
in The Technology of Offshore Drilling, Completion and Production,

.I__
compiled by ET,
Inc.
Tulsa,
Okla.,
Publishing Company, 1976, pp 94-128.
Offshore
Petroleum
Seminars,
Figure 7.7-4. Parallel anchor arrangrrnent
"7-6.
11,
*4,
tests [Ref 7-26] with staggered anchors (sepa-
"Deep water mooring - Parts I,

Sep and Oct
and III," Petroleum Engineer,
1974 and May 1975.
rated by at least four fluke lengths) have shown

system capacities 15 to 20% greater than the sum
7-7.
of the individual anchor capacities.
Anchoring of Offshore Structures,
S.A.
Fjeld.
"Certification aspects," in
Recommended Practice
7.7.3
"Careful
placement of piggyback anchors
i.
required so that orientation and stability are

properly controlled.
back
anchor at the
Hook,
STATO,
piggyback
at
7-8.
Vryhof
ankers.
The
Netherlands,
Vryhof
1980.
Attachmont of the piggyis
crown
or dRUCE type.
anchor
Sep 1980, pp 6/1-6/26.
Ankers,
proper when
the
7-9.
the
Bruce
anchor.
of 'the stabilized Stockless,
primary anchor is
Ltd.,
proceedings of
Anchor Technology
symposium organized by Q.M.C.
Ltd.
International
Isle of Man, England,
The
Bruce
Pa.,
1977.
1978.
Attachment of the
shackle
end
of
'-10.
the
Baldt Inc.
baidt.
Chester,
primary anchor is proper when the primary'anchor

-
The primary
is one of the other anchor typei.
anchors should be set and be well-st-%ilized
Conventional anchor test

7-11. R.J. Taylor.
results at San Diego and Indian Island, Civil
before
Engineering
tension
from
the
piggyback
amn.nor
is
applied.
Laboratory,
Technical
Port Hueneme, Calif., Jul 1980.
7-23
%,
'%
Note N-1581.
Calif., Jun 1980.

*7-13.
7-22. 1. Foss, T. Kvalstad, and T. 'Ridley.

"Sea bed anchorages for floating offshore, struc-
Test data summary for

R.J. Taylor.
available drag embedment anchors,
Engineering Laboratory.
Port Hueneme,
7-12.
*coummercially
Civil
tui'es,"
section
en
I," Schip
Werf,
Rotterdam,
7-14.
R.C.
cmodified
Towne
and J.V.
anchors
Stalcup..
for
moorings,
Engineering Laboratory,
Technical
New
Naval
In
Beck.
Proceedings
Conference,
American
R.C.
P.G.S.
of
'the
Ocean
Technology
Houston,
Tex.,
1972,
pp 268-276.
and J.V.
Stalcutp.
7-18.
Port Hueneme,
design,
Naval
BUSH]PS
~~~
Laboratory,
H
Technical
l
R.C.
Towne
pCivil otosNve
Engineering
sn
Memoranmcum
Civil
066.
Memorandum 097.
Holland
pp 230-232.
Model and
7.9
SYMBOLS
Width of anchor fluke [L]
An
anho
exponent
anirr
weight
constant in the holding
Port
capacity predictive relationship; value

with anchor/soil combination
Tests of
Laboratory,
Port Hueneme,
(piggybacks),"
Anker Advies. Bureau,
Table 7.5-1]
J.V. Stalcup.
,
Engineering
"Anchors in tandem or the
Mote
moorings and ground tackle design in mud bottom,

Naval
anchor
pp 114-128.
Naval
5varies
and
in
small-scale tests to evaluate- the performance of

drag anchors in combination, Naval
Civil
Engineering, Laboratory, Technical Ngte N-1707.
Port Hu'eneme, Calif. , Oct 1984.
Huenme,
Jn 193.
ali.,
Cn7-19.
1980,
R.J. Taylor and G18. Walker.
7-26.
Test of anchors and ground
R.C. Towne.
Stackle
"Methods
Mar
back-up anchors
Shipbuilding,
Aug 1954.
Calif..
API
Tests of
"BUSNIPS anchors in mud and sand bottoms,

"Civil Engineering Laboratory, Technical
r-195.
Dove.
Offshore,
P.J. Klaren.
7-25.
"Anchor performance tests,"
Towne
Institute,
Report R-044.
M.W. Cole and R.W. Beck. "Small-anchor

to predict full scale holding power,"
Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE 2637, 1969.
7-17.
'.
Petroleum
Dallas, Tex., Jan 1982.
hand"eng,"
7-16.
*tests
*
Structures,
platforms,
use of
R.W.
Sea
recommended practice for planning,

and constructing fixed offshore
7-24.
and
Civil
Port Hueneme, Calif., Mar1960.

7-15.
on
7-23. API
designing,
RP.2A.
no. 9, 1971, pp 627-634.

*
Comniission
Working Group on Foundations,. Feb .1980.
'K.J. Saurwalt. "Movements and equillbrium of anchors holding on an impervious sea

bed,
FIP
dt
Dept
Efficiency of drag anchor system, based on

a
Technical
Calif., Dec 1954.
o
o
rand
the flke'
tip
a.-
Correction factor converting the
rectangular aria B x L to the actual

projected fluke area
7-20. R.C.
pr
eeseite
pbresentdatoy
Towne.
"Mooring anchors," paper
gatthAn,Nval Meinl
ThSoiety
thechnnal M
angum 066.
S
oietyPh of
Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, M1w York,

N.Y.,-19. 59.
mooinY,
1 .
7-21.
R.J.
Taylor.
"Performance,
Drag anchor holding capacity- (withoutl

chain contribution)
oF]
H
Contribution of embedded chain to holding
Ct Ecapacity of drag anchor system
eF]
of conven-
HM 'H Holding capacity

capacity
of drag
anchor air
system,
d of ag
10,000-lbst
weight
anchor plus chain (F]
H
ding capacity
(
w
eight
~version
Holding of the
t of reference
reference anchor,
ac
r WA
WA(F]ight
tional anchors," i n Proceedings of the Octan

'
Technology Conference, Houston,
Tex., 1961,
pp 363-372.
7-24.
'...
*-A.'
. *"j
*.*''*
".. ".'.
,-~ " *-. ...
"
.-d
*.*o.
. .'
~.-
'
..
*-..
* *.. -
*.
-.
..
A constant in anchor holding capacity

predictive equation for sands; value varies
with crown embedment, soil friction angle
unit weight, and anchor
and effective
3
"shape CF/O ]
Length of anchor fluke [LI
N
c
holding capacity
A constant In anchor for
clays; varies with
predictive equation
anchor geometry
Undrained shear strength of soil [F/Lz]
WA
A
Air weight of anchor (does not include

chain weight) [F]
Angle between fluke and shank of drag
anchor [deg]
o'.%".
* *.
., . . .,. .
7-25
*~
~~
-r
~~- ~
.-
.-
'.
---- v.~
~~~~~~'
=W-
Chapter 8
PENETRATION OF
3.1
9.1.1
OBJECTS
INIRODUCTION
Purpose
This chapter presents technliques for predi':ting the Ide'th of penetration of objects
ruished into-or impacting on sediments found in
trhedeep ocean. The techniques prssented can
also be used to predict tt!.e
force required to
push an object to a specified depth within the
seafloor and to predict the sediment-rel1ated
forces acting on a rapidly moving object after
it impacts the seafloor surface,.
8.1.2
*highly
*.,
*
Scope
8.1.2.1 Seafloor Types.

Techniques presented here are limittd~in application to seafloors of unlithifled sediments (i.e., the
terrigenous and pelagic clays and silts, tinds,
anM deep sea oozes). Special techniques, not
covered here, are required to predict penetrations in lithified sediments, coral, basalt, and
other rock types. Thas* special techniques are
empirical and art normally limited in
application
to
a
particular
projectile
Ef.(Rf
8-11. Some discussion on penetration of
propellant-embedded anchors in coral and rock is
given in Chapter.6.
8.1.2.2 Penetrator Tyees. The prediction

techniques used are applicable to objects of all
shapes and sizes, ringing from long streamlined
objects' such as instrumented penetrometers,
free-fall corers, and propellant-embedded anchor
flukes, to large blunt objects sucht as gravity
anchors, structure bearing pads, and Ship hWIlS.
INTO THE
SEAFLOOR
g..1.2.3 Penetrator Velocities. The techniques presented are applicable for penetration
velocities from near zero (normally called
.static" penetration) to 400 fps. This encompasses the full velocity range expected in Navy
deep ocean applications.
8.2
8.2.1
STATIC PENETRATII3H
Applicatlijn
The term "static penetration" identifies a

category of soil penetration events in which the
objects' penetration velocity on impact with the
seafloor is less than 3 fps.
For velocities
less than this, fluid drag force in the water at
the time of impact, soil strain rate, and
inertia factors have negligible influence on
penetration. This static problem is 'adequately
treated by conventional pier and pile bearing
capacity methods., Objects in this category are
footings, structure bearing pads, mud mats, raft
fourdations, gravity anchors, spud cans, jacked
piles to'roffshore pla~tforms, and m~any bottomresting dnvices used to test for properties of
seafloor sediments.
8.2.2
Approach
The static penetration problem is subdivided into shallow and deep sediment penetration cases, at defined by the ratio of an
object's penetration depth to its diameter (or
minimum lateral dimension if not circular), z/B.
In shallow penetration, this ratio is less than
2.5.
The' shallow condition is treated as a
(FI
conventional bearing capacity problem with the

influence of friction on the sides of the penetrator set equal to zero (Ref 8-2, 8-3] (see
Secton
Fiure8.21).N'
.2. an
yb = buoyant unit weight of soil

et f/ pntrto o3h efc
z
tive bearing surface EL)
= a dimensionless bearing capacity
fac tor determined by
S eFcit u
orne 8..2 .1) a.C
n
N'
c
Assumptions:
v < 3fps
5[1
where:
0.2(8/1)]Cl
-mds
~
peerto'r
rsne
.. L
a
pecJ~tr
~tion
QU=0.5
where:
, where z/S 9
=bern
tr earing f area s
b caaiyfto
penetra
Figure 8.2-2
values for N
Influence "'..~~~~~
of
side
friction on the
"..
.. -"
becomes substantial and must be
This is done by theB
included in computations.
the
used
ities.
Techniques
for predicting
hapey
Yq
~~~ ned foral)
obt.
ailS
30
hegreesisance
to
e
h
on % =0egreerrand
bearingle,
are difficult to obtain. In-situ measurement is

not likely to be possible, and material sampling
pile c<pac-
i4
presents curves for obtaining

and A. These~ values depend on *
the
for predicting deep static
pn rtn-peee
(8-3)
BY
factor
penetratort
methods
coarse silts,
is described by the relationship [Ref 8-4]:
(after Ref 8-2 and 8-3).
tame
(e.g.,
and gravels), the resistance to penetra-
Figure 8.2-1. Shallow static penetration m odel
2.5),
soils
For cohesionless
inarSection 8o.zonta
In deep penetration (i.e.
the minimum value of' the

bearing area horizontal
dimensions
L =penetrator diameter, or
maximum value of the
bearing area horizontal
2.5
f
B
(8-2)
O.2(z/B)J
t/
1 = penetrator
diameter, or
+the
(7b) Z
maximum N' 9
f= 0
z/B :
2t
with subsequen
laboratory,
mtesting is difficult
because of the easily disturbed nature of coneSsionless
soils.
Unless
other
the values shown for
e tavailable,
information
under average
conditions i~nFigure 8.2-2 should be used.
"best
For cohe8.2.3.1 Descriptive Equations.
sive soils (e.g., clays, muds, fine silts), the
resistance
to
penetration
estimate
Figure 8.2-2,
for
rshould
grphical
values
is
be
of N
made.
A
,In
can be
is described by the
simplified relationship (Ref 8-3]:
For most fine sands and silts, a friction angle

of 30 degrees canoe considered tyoical of a low
2.5+),40
vauz)
to medium relative density.
An angle of
degrees cam be considered. typical of a very
where:
bearing force resistingspenetration
high
h
relative denhity,
[F]
An =oend
t
area of penetriator n (the
tive bearing surface) [Li2
7.-
Tebwn
ffec
aaiyfcos
Tio
used in Equations 8deand 8-3t respectively, are
oil Undrained shear strength

this. quation,.meaiured at a deptho
8/2 below z (F/L2]
a*
d
tho
deth
To determine-the Ms
amum depth,
882
to
ointh
ea
ti
s
pon,
of
nfonetration of
'
100-
30P
'1I
1.2
I4
Cow2
.8
8
smoothshaft6
-;"
o
shaft
prosuueg
ST
'90-
./5
conditi
40
_05frv
a15
knfito
.6
eons hf
Vt
15
40
'.
30
I0
054
/015
_________r____o
9001
al onaio
hps
rg
CL
1.f.avrge.
condtion,
.4'CiU
Fiur 8.
V' ero.
Anasue
.2
fo.acltn
Relaionhip
/2
dphisetee
2ikg
itRtatid.
spondin
r
circtingforcnsatio tha peerto.F
tLiemtne
3.f
ocsaesmle
hnte
peerto force th0n a deeper penetration
asumd
*W
an2h.ocsa0reacltd
Although~~~~~~~~~~~~
culytil
th2ouini
and-error,
~ iso0e
~ ~ ~sflt
~ ~ s~~~~1
i5 n tv
aprah2010
0v
oe yslciga
(~0
__8 _____
chsols
eitnei
In matino
ol;fr~
ths
30ad4
aluainsBti
n
orresptonding penetoratsio:
sstne
o7each calcu eationg seacty
anfeeopr
lt
shvrusapThn
oigtes
fre.viabet
2U
as
bjc
eertoth
etddpho
eeraincnb
bandfo
h
lte
uv.
Ohrie
teepce
et-cn
dtrmnafo tetiteplto ewe
h
3
"*
values of Q higher and lower than the driving
method for predicting deep static penetration in
""
force.
Should the ratio z/B exceed 2.5, then
the soil friction on the sides of the object
Section 8.2.4). A flow chart of the calculation

process for both shallow and deep penetration is
must be considered in the calculation (see the
given in Figure 8.2-3.
"
t
"isv <
,..
DYNAMIC
NO
USE METHOD FOR
8.31
SECTION
FT/ECPENETRATION,
YES
,-
OBJECT CHARACTERISTICS J"

DETERMINE
L, B, At, Wb
"
OBTAIN SOIL PARAMETERS

(COHESIVE) Su, yb' z
(COHESIONLESS) o, Yb
SELECT DEPTH INCREMENT AZ
INITIATE - i
i0. z .
'..."
zi =~~i(Az)
":
i
""
EQUATION 8-2
".
DETERMINE VALUE
HALOW:.......
is
DETERMINE VALUES FOR:
DETERMINE VALUES FOR:

N
Su, Yb'N,
Su, y , NC" 0, KHNyq, 9nd' Aat z = -
an
COHESIVE
COHESIONLESS
o
4,
a
(AS NECESSARY)
NECESSARY)
S(AS
EQ 8'-1 COMPUTE Qu
EQ 8-3 (AT zi)
EQUATION 8-2
PENETRATE ONE MORE '
DEPTH INCREMENT AZ
COMPUTE Qu COHESIVE - EQ 8-4

(AT zt)
COHESIONLESS " EQ 8-5
a..
T
IS
i'..oo
(AT
z.
DATA INTERPOLATION
Figure 8.2-3. Flow chart of the calculation procdure for predicting static penetration.
S- -
8.2.3.2
N .-
of
Influence
Penetrator
Shape.
8.2.3.3
Selection.
should have this increasing area considered at
effective stress strength parameters,
each
are
new
calculation.
the
bearing
The
force,
increasing
profile for undrained
area
not only directly
through the increased bearing area,
shear strength,
given in Chapters 2 and 3.
dealing
with
relatively
uniform
clays
capacity factors.
deposits are not found often in
penetrator
nose shape also influences

the shape of the soil failure zone mobilized to
resist the penetration.
"soil zone
su,
and
c and
*,
These methods
are applicable to the penetration proble-n when
but also by
changing the ratio, z/B, determining the bearing
"The
or sands.
However,
deep
deposits
'uniform
of
sand
the deep sea
environment.
Those sands that do occur are
normally the lower portions of turbidite layers
For blunt objects, the
and
governing the penetration performance
have interbedded
clay
sized
soil.
layers of graded silt to
For
such
complex
sediment
reaches a depth of one object width or diameter
profiles, present technology is not sufficiently
below the bearing surface.
developed to describe the penetration phenomena.
soil strength values,

of 8
below z -is
objects,
su,
The average of the

over a depth interval
Given -the present state-of-the-art,
used in the bearing capacity
(Figure 8.2;4(a)].
equation
'
Parameter
Methods for the development of a soil strength
affects
"
Strength
Tapered or rounded penetrators that present an

increasing width and area during penetration
For
such complex
profiles should be treated as cohesive soil when
tapered
excess penetration is
such as the conical-pointed spud cans
of primary concern and as
coheslonless soil when inadequate penetration is
on some offshore jack-up platforms, s u is deter-
the primary concern.
mined over a depth, 8, 'measured from the bottom

of the cylindrical or full section [Ref 8-3]
[Figure 8.2-4(b)], rather than from below the
data
point of tip penetration.
Equation 8-1
8.2.3.4
Prediction Accuracy.
Some field
are available to examine the accuracy of
in predicting penetration.
Equa-
t.in 8-1 was used to predict the penetration of

spud cans
for offshore
jack-up platforms
.......
__.___....
[Ref 8-3] in clay.
Out of 120 sets of data,
the predictions were found to be within 25,
'"':''"of
of the measured penetrations.
"less than
"7---u
S'
704
No prediction was
50% of the measured value,
and only
five predlctions exceeded the measured value by

/
'
d tmand
e
more than 50% [Ref 8-3].

Penetration predicttons in sand, however, will be considerably
less accurate due to difficulties in obtaining
accurate in-situ soil strength parameter data in
(a) Par blunt eetit
cohesionless soils.
8.2.4
.... ---
Methods for Predicting DeepStatig

Penetration
...
"
. "
(For
(b)
Spenetrator
8.2.4.1 Descrptive Equations.

Where z/B
2.5, the soil friction on the walls of the
becomes
a significant resistance
21..
cnkal P"Wavem
'
factor and must be considered. Such penetrations
are not normally the case with initial penetra-
tion velocities of less than 3 fps, except for

Figure 8.2-4. Location of the critical shear strength
zone 8 for blunt and conical penetrators
slender,
"(afterRef 8,3).
___.
8,5
very heavy objects or for objects that
are being pushed by external forces
(e.g.
spud
soil
cans
of
jack-up
rig
or
the
compared
test
devices).
In cohesive
Equation 8-1 is
soils,
when z/B exceeds 2.5,
to
tion term to become:
known driving
forces
(object
force),
new
penetration
selections
depth to
supplemented with a side fric-
the
underwater weight and any external

are made
for
the
improve the agreement between
and
calcu-
lated
resistance and known driving forces.
block
diagram
of this
calculation process
is
given in Figure 8.2-3.

(8-4)
At(Su N' + Yb Z) + As su a
Qu =
where:
8.2.4.2
offshore oil
A = side area in contact with the soil
Skirt Penetration Prediction. The

industry has developed an alterna-
[L2J
a = adhesion factor (soil against

object); use a = 0.5 or o = 1.0 as
explained in the following
paragraph
= average soil undrained shear
strength over the side area in
contact with the soil
[F/L
tire technique for the prediction of forces

required to imbed the thin-walled steel skirts
..
and
dowels used beneath the bases of offshore

platforms (Ref 8-7).
gravity
soil
tests
are
developed with
The
adhesion
and
is
factor
is
a function of
difficult
to determine
the soil plasticity,
strength,
and
degree
of
[Ref 8-5,
8-6].
Use
a = 0.5
SN'c
reaches
a Dutch cone penetration
shear
when
too
much
qu
its
maximum
.kt qc
where:
2.5,
Equation 8-3
slightly
soils,
is
value
higher
when
z/B
z/B
supplemented with
ratio.
kf qc
(8-7)
exceeds
a side
is
kf
where
friction term to become:
Values
KHpo
H
tan
In
and
esistance.
correlation
kf
general,
listed should be used in

.(8-5)
where:
friction
the
of
Table 8.2-1.
0.5 At(B Vb Nyq)
The
kt = tip correlation factor

qc = Dutch cone penetration resistance
obtaiied from in-situ tests
(F/L2]
at
resis-
(8-6)
this
cohesionless
.-
overconsolidation
The unit wall friction is:
occurs
are
skirt tip resistance is:"
(N' : 9.0) at z/B = 2.5 and remains constant at

higher values of this ratio.
For other shapes
In
in-situ
Correlations
tance measured during the tests [Ref 8-3].
penetration
is
the primary concern,
and use
S1.0
when
inadequate
penetration
is
the
primary concern.
Note that for square and round
penetrators,
Specific
required.
are
the
factor.
listed
higher
in
values
predicting penetration
The lewer values were found in
the
upper 3 feet of the sediments and are believed

to reflect the effect of piping from water
KH a coefficient of lateral earth

pressure (from Figure 8.2-2)
"po * soil overburden pressure
2
OF/L ]
6 = friction angle between penetrator
and sand (for steel 6
* - 5 deg)
trapped beneath the platform base.

These corw
nlv
r
relations are applicable to very slow penetration rates of 0.3 to 3 ft/hr
[Ref 8-7].
[deg)
*
= soil
friction angle
Table 8.2-L.
Equations 8-4
and
8-5
penetration
are
used
to
depths,
described
in
as
for
deep
determine
static
for
penetrations.
depth is
assumed; parameters are calculated; and
'corresponding
calculated.
resistance, to
This
calculated
kt
Soi Deactrptlea
penetration
shallow
Skirt end 01* Penetration Roestance
penetration
Section 8.2.3.1
First,
Correlation Coefficients Between Dutch Cone

Penetration $esstanceand Thin-Walledr
vey",tiff.
silty c|ey
prnetration
is
inteixd de.sesa,
resistance
is
Dame to
0-6
layeeu
$itt
f|n
sand
kf
0.4-O.S
0.03-0.0.5
e.s
e.00e-O.oi4
0.3-0.5
0.01-0.03
j.
,..".
-.
N.
A:
8.3
.-
.....--
DYNAMIC PENETRATION
...
layer.
The calculation
is
..
repeated
for each
successive layer until the kinetic energy of the

8.3.1
Application
penetrator has been consumed and its velocity

reaches zero. The depth at zero velocity is the
The methods presented

used
""
to
predict
the
in this section are
penetration
of
predicted penetration depth.
objects
The distance penetrated at each step (Az)
entering the seafloor at velocities of 3 fps and

greater.
Examples of objects that undergo
must be assigned prior to beginning the calcula-
dynamic penetration are:

objects being lowered
rapidly or free falling to the seafloor, such as
dividing an expected (guessed)*total penetration

into approximately 10 equal increments.
gravity
anchors' and
falling
objects,
ship
such
as
hulls;
other
gravity
tions.
It
is suggested that Az be assigned by
free-
corers
and
Method for Predicting Dynamic Penetration
8.3.3
"penetrometers;
and objects propelled at higher

speeds than terminal free-fall velocities, such
8.3.3.1
The forces acting on an object penetrating at
8.3.2 ,Approach
moderate velocity deep in a soil mass are shown

in Figure 8.3-1.
The net downward force 'after
"full object
The technique presented here predicts both
total
penetrations
and
decelerating
forces
Fdi + Wbl
F1
where:
[F]
but is
sides of the penetrator, and transition

onthe'
on
* effects in passing from the overlying fluid drag
""
* .
.well
the
dynamic
because
the
bearing,
side friction,
resisting
penetration
force. terms
Two
problem
for
penetrator
"depth increments
into
noSe
other
and hydraulic drag, as
the soil
or layers (Az).
in equal
fluiddrag force [F] (see

Section 8.3.3.5)
ith increment of soil depth
of
these
three,
Qni'
Fdi
and Wbi,
are
into the soil mass.
The
Frst,and Fhi,
are resisting
that penetration.
8.3.3:2
bearing
finite
Nose Resistance.
resistance force
The tip or nose
for the ith layer Is
obtained from:
Resisting soil
and hydrodynamic forces are calculated an the

basis of the entry'velocity and the soil proper-
Qni
ties for each step.

The energy lost by the
penetrator in overcoming the first layer resis-
whr:
Su2(nose) %j Nt At
ose
tance forces is calculated and subtracted from

t *e penetrator kinetic energy on entering the
th
u;I
underlyng layer.
The kinetic
,defined
energy remaining
with the penetrator and its reduced velocity ire
A
.
used for computations oti penetrating the second
forces,
driving the penetrator
as the driving kinetic energy term, are

velocity dependent.
The procedure is to step,
the
Fhi
subscript 1
regime into the soil penetration regime.

An iterative procedure is used for the
of
F
F
tip or nose bearing resistance (F]

(see Section 8.3.3.2)
ide friction or adhesion (F) (see
Section 8.3.3.3)
=n'
extended to account for strain rate effects on

the soil shear strength, remolding of the soil
solution
(8-8)
net downward force exertsd by the

penetrator [F]
Fdi = external driving force, if any
(e.g., rocket motor) (F]
Wbi = penetrator buoyant weight
The approach is basically the same as that

prediction,
qnt - Fsi - F hi
Fi
velocities up to 400 fps.

used for static penetration
entry into the soil at distance zi
is:
versus depth.
Early versions of this technique
[Ref 8-9,8-10,8-11]
have
been
modified
[Ref 8-12, 8-13) to adapt the technique to
""-
Forces Acting on the Penetrator.
as propellant-embedded anchor plates.
soil undrained shear,

strength at a depth 0/2
below z, averaged over ith',
increment of penetration
strain rate factor (to be
in Section 8.313.4)
end area of penetrator (the
effective bearing surface)
EL23
&.7
(8-9)
V-77
~Vccity'v
impict
the undrained shear strength of a sand can be

found in Reference 8-14.
(It is a very diffi-
Z -0
cult property to measure or estimate.)
8.3.3.3
0.o0
*
-.*o.
.-
,..
.....
or
adhesion
Side Friction.
force in
SFdl;
"
FdJVelocity-v
"- z-,Fs
obtained
from [Ref 8-12]:
tFho
aufirst
penetration
The side friction
the ith layer is
Ii-Si
As
[ s.....)]
Wbl
' "
""
where:
undisturbed undrained shear

strength to remolded
undrained shear strength
(obtained normally from
testing)
A5 = side
L]" area of the penetrator
Q
#####Qn1
#1Fhl
trntonsoils
4 .
'-'
(8-11)de
= soil sensitidity or ratio of
at later penetration ''..4.
(8-11)
-.
Sui (side) = solundrained shear

strength averaged over the
length of the penetratot in
Velocity
zoi- - Vi
z"i(Az)
I I*
contact with the soil
This assumes no separation between the soil and
''*
the side of
jJfT Qni
the object being penetrated during
."
penetration.
t Fhi
8.3.3.4
___
undrained
Figure 8.3-1. Forces acting on a penetrator before and
undrain
after contactafte
with
the
wih cotac
te seaffoor.
saflorincrease
and
is
dimensionless
nose
resistance
(8"10)
10.0.
The term su1 represents the undrained shear

Dynamic
of sands as well as clays.
penetration in sands is rapid enough to be
considered undergoing an undrained type of shear
When
sands
dynamic penetration
are
event,
sheared
during
the pore water does
not have time to flow, and failure occurs when

either the sand grains are crushed or cavitation
of the poie water occurs.
The forces required
to' do this
reofth
increases.wih
This increase
to as the strain rate effect on shear
8-13],
has been developed for calcu-
lating the strain rate factors S;i:
strength
failure.
she
strength.
A somewhat cumbersome' formulation,
based on a best fit to penetration test data
[Ref 8-12,
'where maximum Nti=
Cohesive soil
increases
with an,
may be as high as a factor of 5.0 'when soil

shears in response to a rapidly penetrating
object [Ref 8-11, 8-15].
This is more conionly
referred
5(1 + 0.2(8/L)]J1 + 0.2(z 1 /8)]
strength
in the rate of strain.
factor determined by,:

Nti
Strain Rate Factor.
shear
1..C
where minimum S.
S.'
,a
0.5
oi+ C0 )
(8/12)
I and
maximum strain rate factor,'from
Table 8.3-1 ,'

C;= empirical strain rat* coefficient,
Table 8.3-1 [FT/L]
.
vi1
velocity entering the ith layer
eicl
s
from
CO
empirical strain rate constant, from
ul
Table 8.3-1
soil undrained shear strength equal to
. (nose) or s (side), depending on
wich of theseuthat S;, is modifying
are large' and hence the undrained
shear strength is high' (e.g.

on an order of
magnitude of 50 psi).
A method for obtaining
S
v;/
i-i
010
Values of Constants Used in Equatior. 8-12
Table 8.3-1.
Parameter Value
Condition for Use in
S;
Rapid Penetration Problems
s/ft2)
CO
(lb-se~f2
Problems with long,

cylindrical penetrators
[Ref 8-13)
0.11
All other object shapes

where inadequate penetration
is of concern [Ref 8-16]
10
0.25
All other object shapes

where excess penetration
is of primary concern
40
1.0
[Ref 8-16)
0 5
(4 At/A) .
use
values of S;*,
Equation 8-12
in
problems because the major resisting force terms

and Fhi) are velocity or depth depen(Qnt' ,F s
dent, requiring the input of new values with
(8-13)
The appropriate
to
An iterative
8.3.3.6 Method of Solution.
process is used for the solution of penetration
equivalent diameter of penetrator [L]

as determined by
are
C;, and CQ
specified
penetrator travel.
in
categorized
separately
from "all
following modification
other object
shapes."
This simple geometric shape has a
large side surface area in comparison to its
frontal
area
predictive
8.3.3.5
to
(modifiel
F
and lends itself better to this

Section 8.3.3.7).
(see
technique
eliminate
of Newton's
the
second
parameter
time):
2
penetrator mass [FT /LQ
N a
Fluid Drag Force.

The fluid drag
on a penetrator while moving
law
(8-15
v'
(
\dz)
1
where:
force 'acting
The net downward force is an
inertial force related to the deceleration of

the penetrator and can be obtained from the
Table 8.3-1, as are the conditions of their use.

In Table 8.3-1. long cylindrical penetrators are
dv
dz
instantaneous change in velocity
through water is assumed to continue to exist as

it moves through the soil.
The fluid drag force
)2
(0.5) C0 p At(vi
(8-14)
penetrating
prediction caused by minor errors in the assume4

penetration velocity (Ref 8-12.1,
Then, after
2
2
~z
F
F8
-
The now velocity for the (f1+)th

Values
"where
terminal
%
for
possible,
is
dv/dz
reorganization of terms:
C0 a dimensionless fluid drag coefficient (the same as that in

seawater)
p 2 mass density of the soil, the
2
4
"fluid" being accelerated (FT /L ]
vi I penetrator velocity after
the ith layer [F/il
where:
calulations,
The double increreplaced with (2Av)/(2Az).

ments are used to minimize deviations in the
is calculated as:
Fhi
incremental
For making
are best
C0
values
by
backfiguring
velocities
in water.
obtained,
V
fromo measured
In
increment is:*
absence
a* vt* 1
a
$ 2 Av1
of
the
To begin the incremental calculations,
velocity, v1 , at the end of the 'first increment
measurements, uld CD values from a hydrodynamics

reference (e.g., Ref 8-17).
8.9-
of, seabed penetration, zi. must be generated.

An approximation for v1 can be obtained from:
0 ( 0/v(Az/M(
Qni
bl
to obtain. Prediction a' penetration in oozes

In foraminiferal
is pprticularly difficult.
oozes, limited data suggest this method will
underpredict penetration--possibly by as much as
FS
a factor of two (Ref 8-18].

(8-18)Penetration of the Navy's Doppler penetrom-
F
'Ii)]
eter, a long slender penetrometer shape, in

where v0 is the initial penietrator velocity on
various seatloors i.a compared~ with in-situ
entering the seafloor (F/I], Fd1 ' Wb QnI F 1
codtnsiRernee-8
and F are the respective parameter values for
the first layer of penetration [F].
Is
N
3 FT/SEC"
This approximation for v1 is then used to
recalculate the fluid drag force (EquationYE
8-14). At this point, all the forces
to calculate the net downward force
The first iteration for
determined.
v i+1 can then be
and
,
F1 I 2Av 1
(Equations 8-14, 8-16,
and 8-17).
'OBJECT
CMKUTERISTICS
EQUATION
8-1.3 DETERHINE
L.A8.0. At*A.
A, W' P'v. C
necessary
have been
values of
completed
USE PETHOOFOR STATIC
~TRAITORSECTION
JE
8.21
JOBTAINSOILPAPARTERS
TABLE8.3-1
1u
Subsei'ent
SLC
V ;
t
ET
NRNN
iterations are made by recalculating Fdi- Wdio
Qni F
and Fh
for the next increment of
ITA ZETRTVEALS
penetoation.
When the computation forv +
produces a negative velocity, the iterative
procedure is completed. The knaximum penetration
i-i*Z
of the object is then obtained by interpolatin~g

between the last two velocity values as follows:
z az
Az
OIF
W
TU IB
,(EPEHINRNETB
l(8-19)
V +
A-,8-I?.
EQUATIONS
CITE %I~
8-11,N-1I? 6
EQUATIONS
StA S-,
(side).
A flow chart for this procedure is shown in
Figure 8.3-2.
8.3.3.7 Prediction Accuracy
The dynamic
penetration 'prediction techn~ique provides reasona;ole oenetration estimates for long slender
pen Ietrators
in.cohesive
sediments,
Eo
SING.
such Ias
S1Ml11EOAIN-8
ussempirical data (S;* I C;. C0 ) from field

tests with penetrators of this shape in soils if
these types. For differently shaped penetrators
and for penetration in sands and other noncohesive materials, the accuracy will not be as
I'S
CONUT
8-14
EQUATION
silts.
hedipelagic and pelagic clays and 'Infine
*This is true because the predictive technique
good.
EUtONBI
8-8
EQUATION
OPUE
*
E1
8-I1C6OT
EQUATION
Is
Little field data ex ist for object pene-
WB
<>-d
tration, into that*e granular Sediments and for

'In addition, the
their in-situ properties.
YES
undrained shear strength developad' during the
EQAIN81
COMTErM~IAX I
:
1.-C +
Figure 8.3-2. Flow chart of the calculation procedure%
rapid penetration is a very difficult parameter
for predicting dynamnic penetration.
8-10
8.4
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
Lontainer is 4 Feet in diameter by 12 feet high

and-weighs 20 kips in seawater.
8.4.1
Problem !--Slow Penetration of a Long
the site is a pelagic clay.
Cylinder
the
core.
problem is
Determine how
Problem Statenent:
Soil properties at
site have been determined
piston
8.4.1.1
The sediment at
schematic
from
a 40-foot
diagram
shown in Figure 8.4-la.
for
The results
testing for soil shear strength
laboratory
deep ;nto the seafloor a cylinder will penetrate
of
after being slowly lowered to the bottom.
and density are shown in Figure 8.4-1b.
Data:
An electric power source (EPS)
is to
An estimation of- the depth of
static penetration z is
cooling water
and
to
lateral
procedures
intakes remain above the rnudline
pruvide
input
data
in Section 8.2 and summarized by
dure outlined
'or calculating
the flow chart in Figure e.2-3.
The EPS
80
Yt (pcf)
BULl WET DENSIT

90
100
1 .5
120
1'O
UMIDRATNED SHEAR STRENGTH,
0
lowering'!ne
cooling
The analytical
and computations used to solve this
problem are shown below.
required to verify that
stability end breakout load.
Problem Solution:
8.4.1.2
be lowered to a specific seafloor location at a

speed of 2 fps.
this
2 ... ....
(psi)
.. ..
. 4
.0
water
intakes
L0
v-2fps
*1
-.
su - 1.O + (z/30)
1-
0a
,=.I
"
- "----.Y-- _
.-
Z/10
"30
_=__
oL",
.. ..
p5 + 0.31:'
$
(b) Soils datas
(a) Problem sketch
Figure 8.4-1. Problem sketch and soils data for example problem 1.
NOTE: It is helpful to klue

Problem 1 In Table 8.4-1.
track of calculated value* in a tabular form.
8-11
This Is shown for.
Problem 8.4-1
1.
COMPUTATIONS
Is this a case of "static" penetration?
Yes:
vo = 2 ft/sec
Is v0 < 3 ft/sec?
2.
Determine object characteristics:
L = 12 ft
L (known)
B = 4 ft
2
2
At = (3.14)(4 ft) /4 = 12.6 ft
Wb = 20,000 lb
8 (known)
2
At = (n)(8) /(4)
Wb (known)
3.
Obtain soil profiles for su and Yb"
Profiles are shown in Figure 8.4-lb for s

Yb ' b is equal to
T - 64 pcf).
4.
Select depth increment Wz.
az= 2.0 ft (a round nuuher for convenience)
S.
Calculate embedment depth:
and
= (1)(2.0 ft) = 2.0 ft
zI( 1) Az
6.
Is this a case of shallow penetration?
Yes:
zl/1
= 2.0 ft/4.0 ft a 0.5
Is z/B < 2.5?

7.
Determine values for:
Q 0,.z *8/2
s u at'0 atodepth
8/2 below z averaged over
z 1 (from
Figure 8.4-1b)
s @2 ft
Yb averaged over 0 to z
Figure 8.4-1b)
(from
(from Equation 8-2) (N' must not

ex~led 9.0)
cu
N' at a
= 0 + (4
ft)/2 =2 ft
a (1 + 2/30) pit a 1.067 psi,
=,153.6 psf
Z.-(
z 1 . z * 8/2
2 ft
(4 ft)/2
4 ft
@4 ft a (1 + 4/30) psi * 1.133 psi:

a 163,2 psf
s (avg) = (153.6 psf + 163.2 psf)/2 a J58.4 psf

uYb
@ 0 ft a [85 + 0.31(0)] pcf - 64 pcf.
z 21.0 pcf
lb@2 ft a (8S + 0.31(2)] pcf
z 21.6 pcf
64 pcf
yb avg a (21.0 pcf + 21.6 pcf)/2 a 21.3 pcf

N'
5C1 * 0.204 ft/4 ft)]1.

. 0.2(2.0 ft/4.0 ft)] - 6.6
8.
Calculate Q , the resistance to penetration

at z a 2;0 t (from Equation 8-1).
Qua At(S N. Yb a)
)
u
2
a (12.6 ft )((158.4 psf)(6.6)
+ (21.3 pcf)(2.0 ft)]
13,710 'Ib
9.
Does Q exceed the driving forces?

u
No!
Is Qu > Wb + Fd?
Wb + Fd
da 20,000 lb
10.
Continue the iterative process.

the assumed penetration by AZ.
Increase
z2 a 2(4z) a 4.0 ft
8-12
*-.-:
'
Problem 8.4-1
COMPUTATIONS
Yes:
Is this still shallow penetration?

Repeat steps 6 through 10 ....
11.,
z/B =4.0' ft/4.0 ft = 1.:.

Calculate s
u
Calculate
@ z2 .
Z2 + B/2= 4 ft + 4 ft/2 = 6 ft
su @ 6 ft = [1.0 + (6.0/30)] psi = 1.20 psi
b average.
= 172.8 psf
Calculate N'.
Calculate Qu
Is Q > W
u
b
su(avg) = (153.6 psi + 172.8 psf)/2 = 163.2 psf

4
Yb @ 4 ft = [85 + 0.31( )] pcf - 64 pcf
= 22.2 pcf
Fb
F'Fd?
d
avg
".b
12.
= (21.0 pcf + 22.2 pcf)/2
N'
511 + 0.2(4 ft/4 ft)i[1

+ 0.2(4.0 ft/4.0 ft)) = 7.2
Qu
ft2)[(163.2 psf)(7.2)
(12.6
+ (21.6 pcf)(4.0 ft)) = 15,890 lb
"No.
(Wb + Fd remains 20,000 lb)
Repeat steps 6 through 10 for z 3.
z3 = 6.0 ft
IsQ.>.W
z 2 + 8/2= 8 ft
F?
21.6 pcf
@ 8 ft
182.4 psf
Su(avg) = 168.0 psi

22.9 pcf
"b 0 6 ft
Yb average
'/.N'
21.9 pcf
7.8
18,170 lb
QU
No
13.
Repeat steps 6 through, 10 for z4.

Is Q
4 = 8.0 ft
z 2 + S/2"' 10 ft
2
s ' 10 ft * 192.0 psf
>
F?
us>b +d
s.
U(avg) 0 172.8 pat
'b average * 22.2 pcf
F,.:.N,
8.4
SQu 20,530 lb
Yes: Therefore, the predicted penetration
lies between 6 and 8 ft.
14.
Actual penetration can be obtained from

direct interpolation of the last two
iterations or, giaphically, from a plot
of all the developed Q values.
The
latter is shown -inFigure 8.4-2.
The predicted penetration is equal to 7.6 ft

(from Figure 8.4-2).
,813
Problem 8.4-1
COMPUTATIONS
The cooling water intakes are 10 ft above the EPS base. Therefore, tney should be 2.4 ft
above the seafloor. Becaur: the EPS is considered a very important installation, great
care should be taken that the lowering speed at impact is as slow as possible. A more
rapid lowering could add a dynamic force component and increase penetration.
15.
Resista,, to pw
e'tpnc on. (J -lb
"0
10_ 12
14
16
Is
20
22
24
26
Table 8.4-1.
2
-d
Z.I 1/2 8
Z+
(ft)
(ft)
xtiot%of theFPS
7.6 ft
Average
Average
cp f)
Q
(1)
N'
158.4
21.3
6.6
13,710
4
""]=I
163.2
21.6
7.2
15,890
168.0
21.9
7.8
18,170
10
172.8
22.2
8.4
20,530
-"2
prediad P
Summary of Calculations for
Problem 1
_lWb*Fd
Figure 8.4-2. Plot of predicted soil resistance to EPS

peetration.
8.4.2
Problem 2--Rapid Penetration of a Long
or to abandon-or destroy the device,
"Cylinder
of ;ts penetration into the seafloor needs to be

estimated.
8.4.2.1
Problem State ent:
"deep
into
will
penetrate
the
seafloor
if
it
large
Determine
how
long cylinder
falls -to the seafloor at'
The electric
being lowered due to a concentrated mass at its

lower end and drag from the severed lowering
line.
power source (EPS)
in
The
terminal
velocity and drag coeffi-
cient for this orientation have: been calculated
Problem 1 was being lowered to the seafloor when
as
40 fps
dand '1.0,
respectively.
the
lowering line was severed.
properties
are 'the
same
not
be located after falling to the seafloor.
The EPS could
In order to decide whether to attempt a recovery
The EPS is suspected to have hit the,
seafloor in the sam orientation in which it was
terminal velocity.
Data:
4&1
the depth
Figure 8.4-1b.)
as
those
A schematic diagram
problem is shows in Figure 8.4-3.
8.14,,
(The
shown
for
soil
in
this
a..
8.4.2.2
Problem Solution:
The analytical
dupes outlined-in Section 8.3 and summarized by
procedures and computations used tO solve this
problem are shown below.
the flow chart in Figure 8.3-2.
"2ft
f
Yv 40 fps
Wb
20 KIPS
H--12 ft
Problem sketch
Figure 8.4-3. Sketch for example problem 2.
Problem 8.4-2
1.
2.
COMPUTATIONS
Is this a case of dynamic penetration?
Yes"
Is v
vo a 40 fps
.3
fps?
Determine object characteristics:
L a 4.0 ft
L (known)
89
"8(known)
0 " 4,0 ft
2
1.2.6 ft
At A (3.14)(4 ft)2/(4)
As = (3.14)(4 ft) z a 12.64z) ftz
0 (known)
(n)(O) 2 /(4)
At
"As
=(n)(0)z
4.0 ft
Wb a 20,000 lb
Wb (known)
(asstme dry weight
(dry weight)/3.2 fps
displaced by the near4ylindrical EPlS)

EPS Volume a At(12 It).* 151 ft3
v (known)
Water Weight a (64 pcf)(151 ftA) a 9600 lb

Dry. weight 2 Wb + 9600 lb * 29,660 lb
M a (29,660 lb)/(32.2 fps') a 921. slugs
C0 (known)
v a 40 fps
_
xW * weight of water
C-
_c__
... .
1.0
Problem 8.4-2
COMPUTATIONS
3.
su from Figure 8.4-2b
Obtain soil parameters:

s
(known)
St = 2 (from Figure 8.4-2b)
(known)
(It was seen from Problem 1 that
p = (t)/(32.2 fps 2 )
S;*, C;, C. (from Table 8.3-1)
-.
0p
.,
varied
little with depth. Therefore, say yt = Yt

at 5 ft)
= [85 + 0.31(5)] pcf/(32.2 fps 2 ) = 2.69 slugs
S;* =4.0
C-= 4 lb-sec/ft 2
e
Co
4.
(Constants for a long

cylindrical penetrator)
0.06
Assume a maximum penetration depth (say 20 ft).
Select depth increment, Az (a round number
to limit computations to about 10

Az = (20 ft)/(10) = 2 ft
iterations)
,%z = (assumed penetration)/(1O)
"5. Initialize
.z,6.
..
0, zo
0, v=
vo = 40 fps
Increase i:
0 +1
1(2 ft)
"2
ft
zi =i(Az)
0 (no external driving force)
7.
Compute Fdl
Fd1
8.
Compute Wbl (Figure 8.4-1b)
Yb(avg) = C(yb
=w b
=W
"'Yb ( a v g ) ( z ) ( n ) ( O) 2 / ( 4 )
yav.(
*0
ft) + (yb 6 2 ft)]/2
64 pcf a 85 pcf - 64 pcf

a 21 pcf
'"
62 ft = C85 + n.31(2)] ptf - 64 pcf"
Yb @ 0 ft
Wb - (displaced soil weight)
Wbl
i 'm
values:
)b
Yb
yb(avg)
"yT
21.6
*
pcIf
21.3 pcf
Wbl_2 20,000 lb
19,465 lb
'8-1
2
(21.3 pcf)(2 ft)(n)(4 ft) /(4)
(.~.
I+
Problem 8.4-2
..
:'-.-;-
--
________________________
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES.
S.
COMPUTATIONS
Compute Qni (Equation 8-4)

Qn1 = Sul(nose)
sui(nose)
Sel Ntl At
[Su(nose) @ 0 ft
+ Su(nose) @ 2 ft]/2
sul(nose) (using Figure 8.4-1b)
su(nOse) @0 ft
S;, (Equation 8-12)
su @ 2 ft = (1 + 2/30) psi = 153.6 psf
Nti (Equation 8-10)
Su(nose)
j
su @ (0 + D/2)= su @2 ft
2 ft= s
@ (2 ft + D/2) = s @ 4 ft
u
su @ 4 ft = (1 + 4/30) psi = 163.2 psf

..
(nose)
= (153.6 osf t 163.2 psf)/2

= 158.4 psf
S.*
.1
+ 1/[C; vo/(sul D) + Co]
I-. + 1/1(4 |b-sec/ft2)(40
fps)1/[(156+4
Ib/ft4){4
ft)
's
0.1110'5O
Nt=51
+ 0.2(8/L)][1 + 0.2(z/8)J
+ 0.2(4 ft)/(4 ft))L1
+ 0.2(2 ft)/(4 ft)] = 6.6
S='51
psf)(1.50)(6.6)(12.6 ft2)
Qn1 =(158.4
=19,760 lb
10., Compute 'Fs
(Eq,:ation 8-11)
sul(side) = (su @ 0 ft + su @2'ft)/2
Fs1 = [Sul(side)/Stl] cel As'
su @ 0 ft = 1.0 psi
Sul(side) (using Figure 8.4-1b)

S (Equation 8-12. Uses the same values
as in Step 8 except where Sul(Side) is
su @ 2 ft = (1 - 2/30) psi = 153'.6 psf

sul(side) = (144 psf + 153.6 psf)/2 +=148.8 psf
144
psf
substituted for su (nose))
As z 12.6(z) ft
Fs
Estimate Fhl using v0 (Equation 8-14)
Estimate the velocity v' (Equation 8-18)

v
Vo + (1/Vo)[(U/M)(Fdl
+ Wbl
v1
Qn-
01110"
2,850 lb
fps
hi
Recompute Fhl (Equation 8-14)
Fhl
(0.5)(1.0)(2.69
slugs)(12.6 ftz)
(39.36 fps)2 a 24,940 lb

2
(0.5) co p At(vQ)2..
Compute
us'ng the new value of Fh,
(Equation 8
F,
ft)
40 fps + (1/40 fpsi2 ft/921 slugs)

I (0 + 19,460 lb - 19,760 lb - 2
850 lb
27,120 lb) = 40 fps - 1.64 fpj
-.
14.
lb/ft')(4
Fhl
(0.5)(1.0)(2.69 slugs)(12.6 ft 2 )(40 fps)z
hI 27,120 lb
"38.36
sl
Fhl
4.8
fp .)I/t(0
(148,8 psf/2)(1.52)(25.2 ftz)
A..
13.
)(40
2
(0.5) C0 p At(v )2
Fhl
.12.
Il
(12.6 ft)(Z.0 ft) q 25.2 ft2
As
5
.4
11.
lb-'.1
j11(4
Fdl + Wbl
Qnj
FSl
F1
0 * 19,460 lb - 19.760 lb
24,940 lb 23,090 lb
hF!
8.17
2,850 lb
Problem 3.4-2
"
COMPUTATIONS
15.
Compute the double velocity increment

2Av 1 (Equation 8-16)
2Avl
(2Az/M)(F 1 /v 1 )
16.
Compute v2 , the velocity for the next

iteration (Equation 8-17)
v
17.
i+1
i-1
+ 24V
2Av 1 -(2)(2.0
ft)/921 slugs]
.(-28,090 lb/38.41 fps) = -3.18 fps
_._
v2
236.82
40 fps- (-3.18 fps.

fps
________________________
This is the end of the first iteration.

If a table is being kept of the computed values
(such as Table 8.4-2), the values should be entered. For the second iteration, steps 6
through 16 should be repeated using v2 and applicable values for a nose penetration of
4.0. ft. These are summarized below.
(Repeat steps S through 16)
i = 1+ 1= 2
z = 2(2 ft) = 4 ft
/.
i = i + 1
"Z
i(Az)
Fd2
Fd2
t tb:
)(n)(0)2/4
N At
S(nose)
".2
u2=S; 2
yb(avg) =
0 ft) ;(ob 4 ft)]/2
- (21 pcf + 22.2 pcf)/2
21.6 pcf
Wb
20,000 lb - (21. pcf)(4 ft)(m)(4) 2 /4
18 ,9 10 lb
""u(nose)
1 + 1/[Ci Vl/(su2 0) + Co
s2
J S; 2 As
su2 (side)/St 2
..F 2
"s2
A
+ (163.2 psf + 172.8 psf)]/2

168.0 psf
1 + 0.2(z/8)]
5[1 + 0.2(8/L)]0
Nt2
a 1s (nose)
ft)/2"Q 2 ft + su(nose)
u22
t2
IS;2
ft7
= 12.6(z)
* h(4
im
Ib-..It)(39.4 fIl(140
.O lb/Ift-)f
t) - O.111
'.
At('
(.)CD
h2
v(.5)
F=
* op Q tv2)
F
Fs2
"
Qn2
Wb2
+
Fd2
F2
F
,.2av
2A2
(2az/)(F/v
(2zM( 2 v 2)
Fh2
Nt2
2
5(11
7.2
Qn2
psf)(1.47)(7.2)(12.6 ftz)
,0(168.0
22,400 lb
su (side)
u163.2
;"
St 2
0.2(4 ft/4 ft)J[1 + 0.2(4 ft/4 ft)]
7.
.(s, * 0
4fts
4 ft)/2psl)/2 = 153.6 psf
psf
~ ~I
* 11114 Ib...tftt)41S.
-
""
(14
p jI(I)l| .4~lIb/ft')(4 Vt) * 0. I11"
7.
As2 * (12.6 ft)(4.0 ft) - 50.4 ft.

Fs2 ' (153.6 psf/2)(1.50)(50.4 ft2) 5,810 lb
F a (0.5)(1.0)(2.69
)
h'. (36.82 fps) 2 - slugs)(12.6'ft
22,980 lb
"F
2* 0
2'- -
18,910 lb " 22,400 lb
22,980 lb a -32,280 lb
5,810 lb
2Av 2 . C2(2 ft)/921 slugs](-32,280 lb/36.82 fps)

2 -3.81 fps.
V
8.18
38.36 fps * 2(-3.81 fps) s34.55 fps
-.
'm
.7
-1 -
.-
Problem 8.4-2
COMPUTATIONS
This is the end of the second iteration. Calculations made during subsequent iterations are not
shown. The values obtained are shown in Table 8.4-2.
At the end of the tenth iteration, the EPS has a very small velocity. The calculation for 2Av,
produces a large negative number because that calculation blows up at a velocity near zero.
Interpolation between velocity values for the tenth and eleventh iterations shows the maximum
value of penetration to be 20.0 ft.
(It is only coinci.-znce that .his is the same as the
assumed penetration used in step 4.)
r,
CONCLUSION:
It is likely the EPS has completely penetrated into the seafloor and lies buried
under about 8 ft of soil.
Table 8.4-2.
|
(It)
(pcf)
su (nose)
Wbi
Sumary of Calculations for Problem 2
Si.
(psi)
(b)
Qn|
sui(slde)
(lb)
(psi)
S~i
As
(it
F51
Fhi
F1
24vl
v.
(ib)
(ib)
(ib)
(fps)
(fps)
--
20,000
"1
21.3
19,465
158.4
1.50
6.6
19,760
148.8
1.52
25.2
2.850
24,940
-28.090
-3.18
38.36
21.6
18,910
168.0
1.47
7.2
22.400
153.6
1.50
50.4
5,810
22,980
-32.280
-3.81
36.82
"3
21.9
18,350
177.6
1.42
7.8
24,790
158.4
1.48
75.6
8,860
20,230
-35,530
-4.47
34255
22.2
17,760
187.2
1.39
8.4
27,540
163.2
1.43
100.8
11,760
17,740
-39,280
-5.27
32.35
10
22.5
17,170
196.8
1.35
9.0
30,130
168.0
1.39
126.0
14,710
14,530
-42,200
-6.26
29.28
12
22.9
16,550
206.4
1.31
9.6
32.710
172.8
1.35
151.2
17,640
11,540
'45.340
-7.55
26.09
14
23.5
16,460
216.0
1.26
10.0
34,290
182.4
1.29
151.2
17,790
8.000
-43,620
-8.72
21.73
16
24.1
16,370
244.8
1.19
10.0
36,710
192.0
1.24
151.2
18,000
5,110
-43,450
-10.86
17.37
"9
18
24.7
16,280
273.6
1.12
10.0
38,610
205.2
1.15
151.2
17,840
2.000
-42.170
-16.85
10.87
10
20
25.3
16,180
302.4
1.00
10.0
38,100
219.8
1.00
151.2
16,620
-38,540
S11
--
40.0
-322
0.2
22
8.5
-311
REFERN.MCES
8-4. Design manual:

Soil mechanics, foundations, and earth structures, Naval Facilities
8-1. J.F.
Wadsworth
III
and R.
Board.
Propellant-e
,--dded
anchors:
Prediction
of
holding
.
Civil
capacity
"N-1595.
8-2.
In
Engineering
K. Terzaghi.
N.Y.,
rock seafloors,
Laboratory,
Port Hueneme,
"New. York,
and
corea
Calif..
Technical
Note
Nov 1980.
Theoretical
John
Engineering Command, NAVFAC OW-7. ' Washington,

D.C., 1962, p. 7-12-5.
soil mechanics.
Wiley
and
and
J.A.
Sons,
1943,
8-S.
recomnded
API
practice
designing,
and
constructing
platforms,
12th
edition,
Institute,
API
RP
2A.
for
planning,
fixed
American
Washington,
offshore
Petroleum
D.C.,
Jan
1981, p. 40.
p. 121.
8-6.
8-3.
J.P.
Gemenhardt
",Theoretical and observed performance
rig footings
Offshore
1970.
on clay,"
Technology
(Paper 1201)
Focht
of maP'le
in Proceedings
Conference,
Jr.
Houston,
of the
Tea.,
J.
de
foundations
Karine
Ruiter
for
Geotachnology,
pp 267-314.
and
large
F.L.
North
vol 3,
fergen.
Sea
"Pile
structures,"
no.
3,
1979,
8-7.
0. Eide,
8-16.
and E. Brylawski.
0. Kjekstad,
the
Sea,"
North
no. 4,
1979, pp 315-368.
8-17.
S.F.
8recktown,
8-8.
Standard method
cone
and
soil,
part 19,
quasi-static,
tests
penetration
friction-cone
Materials,
Pa.,
for deep,
Dec
Personal communication,
True.
vol 3,
Geotechnology,
Marine
D.G.
1982.
"Installation of concrete gravity structures in
Hoerner.
N.J.,
8-18.
American Society for Testing and
dynamics
drag.
"
1965.
rN
of
FluiJ
Hoerner,
R.M. Beard.
Expendable Doppler penetrom-
eter for deep ocean sediment strength measure-
ASTM Standard D3441-79. Philadelphia,
ments,
1981, pp 515-522.
Naval
Techhical
Civil
Report R-905.
Engineering
Laboratory,
Port Hueneme,
Calif.,
Feb 1984.
8-9.
W.E.
Schmid.
"The penetration of objects
into the ocean bottom," in Civil Engineering in

New York, N.Y., American Society
8.6
the Oceans II.
of Civil Engineers,
1970, pp 167-208.
A
Side area of penetrator in contact with
Techniques for predicting

sea floor penetration, U.S. Naval Post Graduate
Monterey, Calif., Jun 1969.
School.
8-10.
R.J.
SYMBOLS
soil [L 1
Smith.
.-
Seafloor
Lee.
H.J. Migliore and H.J.
penetration tests: Presentation and analysis of
At
of penetrator
End area surface)
EL2] (the effective
bearing
Minimum dimension of the penetrator, width

or diameter EL]
C0
Fluid drag coefficient
Ci
2
Empirical strain rate coefficient [FT/L ]
Empirical strain rate constant
,,
8-11.
Naval
results,
Technical
Note N-1178.
Aug 1971,
Port Hueneme,
D.G.
True.
tion
into
ocean
Undrained
D.G.
True.
Technical
,
May 1975,
Ph.D.
Berkeley.
Penetration
into seafloor soils.

Calif.
vertical
bottom, soils,
University of California,
Calif., 1976.
tory,
Calif.,
p.'59.
8-12.
8-13.
Laboratory,
Engineering
Civil
Effective soil cohesion [F/L2]
penetra-
Equivalent diameter of penetrator EL]
thesis,
Net- downward force on penetrator [F]
Fd
External driving force on penetrator [F]
Fh
Fluid drag force on penetrator [F]
F1
Net downward force exerted by the
Berkeley,
of projectiles
Civil Engineering
Report
R-822.
Port
Hueneme,
p. 45.
of
Division,
vol 93,
8-15.
the Soil
American
no. SM6,
U.
Dayal,
Mechanics and Foundations

Engineers,
Society of Civil
mov 1967.
J.H.
Allen,
and J.M.
siustegt f
ain
ed-
Unit wal1
Length of penetrator, in direction of

travel [L]
ith increment of soil depth
KH
Coefficient of lateral earth pressure
kf
Friction correlation factor for standard

cone
kt
coe.Tip correlation factor for Istandard cone
Length of bearing surface of penetrator
"'
in situ strength
ments,"" Marine
of marine sedino. 2,
vol 1,
Geotechnology,
friction for skirt (F/L1]
Jones.
"Use of the impact penetrometer for the evaluktion of the
Side friction or adhesion force on

penetrator [F]
8-14.
H.B.
Seed and K.L.
Lee.
"Undrained
stre'ngth characteristics of cohesonless soils,"4
Journal
'"
penetrator [F]
Labora-
EL]
1975., pp 73-89.
8.20
Penetrator mass [FT2 /L]
Penetrator velocity [LIT]
"N'
Bearing capacity factor for static

penetration in cohesive soils
v0
Penetrator velocity at soil contact [L/T]
St
Nose resistance factor for dynamic

penetration
Wb
Buoyant unit weight of penetrator
Depth of penetration of At,

bearing surface'[L]
4z
Incremental change in penetration
N
yq
Bearing capacity factor for static

penetration in cohesionless soils
2
(F]
the effective
PO
Soil overburden pressure [F/L ]
Adhesion factor (soil Iagainst object)
Qn
Nose resistance during dynamic

penetration CF]
Yb
2
Soil buoyant unit weight [F/L ]
Qu
Net resistance to (static) penetration-(F]

6
qc
Standard cone penetration resistance

[F/L].
2
Soil bulk wet density [F/I ]
Friction angle between penetrator and
sand [deg]
q:u
Tip resistance for skirt [F/L2]
A
p
Penetrator bearing area shape factor

Mass density of the material being
S;
Strain rate factor
S;*
Maximum strain rate factor
..
Soil friction angle [deg]
Soil shear strength sensitivity
Effective or drained friction angle [deg]
Su
Soil undrained shear strength
accelerated [FT2 /L 4 ]
F/IL2 ]
8o21
"Chapter 9
OBJECTS
OF
BREAKOUT
Determination of breakout force is
Removing objects embedded in or resting on
"the seafloor
or the amount
is
of time that a specified lower force has to be
object remain in place.
"applied
two is
force
for object
breakout to occur.
Either
or application time may be limited
level
desired
weapons,
placed instrumentation packages,
of
the object being lifted,
is
Navy
for
;ed in this
research and development work
similar to those proposed elsewhere

The
total
force required
uplift
plus
(Ref 9-5].
The goal
The objective
structures.
of
operation may be the recovery of the

in planning the operationwould be to
predict and provide sufficient lifting force for
for breakout
immediate breakout,
or to determine an adequate
amount of time for application of a lower force
of any bottom
the buoyant weight
previously
or foundations
object for study or to deny its use to others.
will always include the underwater weight of the

object
airplanes,
seafloor
retrieval
sunken ships,
These objects include
"tural
limitations
that the
of objects-embedded in the
the retrieval
seafloor.
(Ref 9-1 through 9-4], although the concepts art
sediment adhering to or lifted With the object.
to ca se breakout.
It
this peration would be the upper limit on force

requl ed or time required for breakout to occur.
is,
however,
the
generated breakout
difficult
and
is
predictiun
force
that
of concern
of
is
sediment-
particularly
he
in this chapter.
place
poor understanding of the complex nature of
floor
the breakout
could
happens
Swhat
to
the soil
durirg
and the variable nature of how differ-
process,
capabilities
predictive
study of
general
would
the breakout
tions
far
above
what
to be available
cou'd
reasonably
in most actual
the sea-
experience an uplift
force in excess
of
For this application, a
estimate
for breakout would be a
That is,
the object would be
exerted
In excess
of
this
value.
This
chapt r presents methods for obtaining the best
be
field
from
its u derwater weight.
were
conditions.
situation
expec ed to remain in place if no uplift forces
and a
knowledge of soil properties in specific situ*expected
breakout
An example would, be a foundation which
lower force limit.
much
require
process,
of
type
and not become dislodged
conse vative
To Improve
ant soils react during that process.
second
A conservative estimate for
invol ts objects that are expected to remain in
fhe force and time predictions by the

methods presented are not highly accurate due to
a
is
The more common of the
submarines,
chapter
it
by ship or equipment capabilities or by strucThe basis for most of what is prese
and where
desired,
impor-
situations--where retrieval
tant in two general
requires determination of the force
needed for a&t immediate breakout,
SEAFLOOR
Applications
9.1.1
INTRODUCTION
9.1
THE
FROM
9..
esti
to and upper and lower limits of the true
brea
ut
force,
and discusses the accuracy of
that estimate.
It
also presents
a method for
forces along the object's sides can. resist its
estimating the time (and upper and lower limits)
removal.
required for breakout to occur at a force below
considerably smaller than object weight and can
the best estimate,
be
The chapter considers only the breakout of

objects
Most
width.
objects
outside
this
categor}
quately
as
embedment
(Chapters,6 or 5),
an
object
well-described'
ship,
that
could
be
would
or
as
ade-
silts),
piles
object
impervious
or low permeability
soil
as cohesive materials *like clays and many

water
flow
into
is impeded.
the space
below
the
Breakoist may be achieved
Some unusual situations in
time needed will be intolerably long for most
is
by
an
With
(such
deeply
these
embedded
other
are
not
treatments
(a
for example); but for the present these

were
as friction along a
with a relatively small force, but the amount of
situations must also

object
necessary,
friction pile (Chapter 5).
fall
treated
anchors
if
these forces will probably be
depending on object size and
depth of embedment.
which
treated,
that are embedded to a depth less than
their
However,
be approached
embeament
anchor
as
or
if
a
the
pile.
The procedures presented for evaluating the

problem and determining values for breakout
applications.
For a
more
rapid
greater force must be exerted:

to
cause
sediment
flow
behind by the object.

somewhat
ainalogous
foundation
breakout,
one high enough
into
the
space
left
This failure mechanism is

to
movement
bearing
accompanying
capacity
failures
(Chapter 4).
Otject.breakout,
however,
Figure 9.1-1.
For example,
initial
flow may create
9.1.2
sediment cracks, which can promote more rapid

water flow and lower theamount of time required
force
or
time
for
breakout
are
outlined
in
General Concepts
may be
from a combination of sediment and water flow.
sediment
for breakout under the applied load.

An object cannot be removed from the ,eafloor unless either water or sediment moves into
the
space
that
breakout. is
the object
occupies.
9.1.3
Definitions
Whether
achieved by sediment or water flow
9.1.3.1
Breakout Force. The breakout force
depends on the amount of time allowed and the

overall permeability of the sediment. An ,.'plift
is the pet uplift force (the force in excess of

an object's submerged weight) applied to lift an
force
object
in excess of
the b oyant weight of the
object will induce change i
out
of
shallow
seafloor
embedment.
the soil pore water,
pressure around the objec .

As time passes,
wpter will flow within the soil mass to normalize the pore pressure (dissipate negative pore
pressures that were devel ped) and allow the
immediate breakout force is the breakout force

in excess of' the object's submrged weight
required to dislodge an object "Immediately"
object to move upward.
(i.e.,
Bre kout will eventualiy
9.1.3.2
Immediate
within a few minutes).
occur with even low net up ift forces if enough
soils such
time i;
breakout force is
allowed.
With per ious or highly per-
Breakout
as
Force.
The
For cohesionless
sand and gravel,
the
immediate
caused by water flow and is
meable soil such as cohesi nless materials like
negligible.
For cohesive soil such as clay and
sand and gravel,
the rate
many silts,
the immediate breakout force is the
rapid.
small,
Only
f water flow will be
fea ly negligible,
net
result of soil
br!aknut force will be need d to achieve break-
dent on
out in a few minutes time.
high.
It 'is
common 'prac-
tice to plan for no breako t forces beyond the

object's buoyant weight wh n lifting shallowly
embedded objects from a co esionless sand sea"
floor. For a large object p rtially embedded in,
cohesionless seafloors, si nificant frictional
soil
9.1.3.3
flow, which is primarily depenshear strength,
Long-Term
And can be very
Breakout
long-term breakout force is
Force.
a force less
,-.
The
than
the immediate breakout force that is applied to

ah object embedded in cohesive soil to dislodge
'-'9'
SETUP
(SECTION9.2.1)
DTERINE9OBJE~CT
ANDSIEMBDMNT
34ARCTERSTIC
(SICTis
(SECTION9.1.1)
IMEDA
ECTO
.. )
IHI SOINO
ESU. ATEC
NO.3?
T/8VEOI? Y
VA.. CITY
C.IAE
CLWAE~
ISEAKOUS
SIMEA
(SECUTION
9.2.)
-9.3*l)
YE
CT0I
14
BKA
LAaI
51E 0
IMIII VELOCITYCESSAAY
NoST
I~YYE
NEAAOICA
(ECTAION9.2.).
EAF
W
'
bE
FVK
VE
COHESI
BOTTM
TEA PAIEYEUTW.
ESTIEMATEIS
s.
YS
CNAEKETRMNE
BEIKT
ESTIMATED
E
11545HAV 9.9.9)7
(5MM91
FOA0CWEOAO
.011 .M)
2F
(SETIO
9..3)
CULSE
19011011 919
CALCUAKJTEA
111001EUATION119-I
Figure
9.A1~ Flow~
Ifor
toDETERMINE
PRhartE eabrkotfcenDFibedre
time
reue VAIV
fo lonRter breakout uneUaRowrVore
it
in
some
finite
of
amount
time
("breakout
aids.
They include
time" defined in Section 9.1.3.6). The long-term
end,
breakout force must be applied over that amount
tubes.
of
time
to
allow
pore
water
flow,
sediment
creep, and possible crack development.
Long-term
water-jetting,
9.1.3.9
rocking,
and
lifting from the
installing
drainage
Waiting time is the
Waiting Time.
breakout is the process that occurs during that
time that elapses between object embedment and
time and can be hours 'or more.
application of a breakout force.
9.1.3.4
Shallow
or
Partial
Embedment.
embedment -is embedment to a
Shallow or partial
depth that is' less than the object width.

is
9.2
REQUIRED INFORMATION
This
the only type of breakout considered in this
Object Fmbedment Characteristics
9.2.1
chapter.
The existing object embedment characteris9.1.3.5
Soil Suction.
Soil suction is
the
tics must be determined or estimated.
sediment flow into the space left by an object,
mate is
as occurs with
immediate breakout from a cohe-
seafloor.
sive sediment.
Because pore water flow i'hto the
object at the mudline is determined.
space beneath the object does not occur quickly

enough,
negative
forces pull
and
pore
pressure
best
is
the
time required
cohesive
Breakout time is
to achieve
sediment
when a
breakout
force
less
9.1.3.7
force
is
the
total
from a
than the
retrieval
cobesionless
equal
to
the
soils,
object's
cohesive soils,
it
breakout
submerged
weight
sediment
displaced.
term is
and becomes
is
1'.e force
cross
sections,
the
(B
must
For nonrec-
object's
longest
embedment depth
is calculated by dividing the
embedded
by
volume
'relatively
the
cross-sectiohal
area.
the downward velocity of the
gently,
embedded in the seafloor

If the object was placed
this
velocity
is
assumed
equal to zero.
approximately
submerged
weight.
For
9.2.2
force
minus
plus
the
the'
buoyant
Although
included,
it
the
object's
Sediment Characteristics
Characteristics
weight of
be determined.
displaced
is usually minor
Likely sediment
smaller as the object moves upward
worldwide
The
seafloor
soil must
breakout
type
type can be estimated from the
ocean
[Figure 2.2-1,
local charts,
Breakout Aids.
of t..
First, it should be determined.
whether the bottom is cohesive or cohesionless.
during the breakout process.

9.1.3.8
situation.
B, as
is equal to the immediate or
long-term
sediment
it
is then
L, and width,
existing
object as It became
should be estimated.
The breakout
required to extract an object from t.- seafloor,

For
the
length,
If possible,
Breakout Line Force.
A, of the
It
embedded dimension Is used for 'L, and A/L is

calculated as the value of B.
An equivalent
immediate breakout force is applied.
line
fits
tangular
Breakout Time.
area,
;lways be less than or e*ual to L.)
extr3cted.
9.1.3.6
The cross-sectional
and an equivalent
the sediment along with the object
into the space beneath the object as it
made of the object's volume below the
represented by a rectangle having the same area
"suction"
or
An esti-
should
sediment
distribution
chart
Chapter 2] or by more accurate

if available.
Actual sediment
be
confiried
by
sampling
(set
forces discussed in this chapter are considered
Chapter 2 for methods),
to
type may be
Wble to be deduced from topography,

and
be
applied
center
of mat-.
breakout
this
force
simplified
approximately
Any
the
object's
possible.
Sediment
that reduce
the
photographs.,
below, the value calculated
for
vehicles if they are used to ohserve the object.
case
3ctions
at
if
are
considered
breakout
material
adhering
to
remote
IF THE SEDIMENT IS COHESIONLESS AND EMBEDMENT IS,
9.4'
'
NOT
DEEP,
IT
IS
LIKELY
THAT
THE
BREAKOUT FORCE WILL BE NEGLIGIBLE.

ment is
*
cohesive,
it
is
REQUIRED
If the sedi-
necessary to estimate
depth was measured within a short time (days)

after
the
continued
object
penetrated
downward
movement
the seafloor,
as
of the object and
its undrained shear strength and the (downward)
soil
consolidation
soil bearing capacity for the object determined,
soft
materials.
These are discussed below.
capacity is assumed to have been exceeded by the
will
In
likely occur
this
case,
in such
the
bearing
object during placement, and:

9.2.3
Bearing Capacity (Cohesive Sediments)F
Bearing capacity for an object vertically

loaded on cohesive sediments (F ) is described
, .W
[after Ref 9-6])by:
."
Yb Vs
s ( +A0.2(&)[1 + 0.2( )-
"where:
su
(9-2)
Wb = object's submerged weight [F]

buoyant weight of sediment'disS
placed by the embedded object (F]
where:
W -W
(9-1)
buoyant
unit
weight of sediment
3
u
uF/L
undrained shear strength of the

sediment (for this equation it is
su averaged from the seafl'oor
surface to a depth D+B) (F/L 2 ]
horizontal area at the mudline
Vs= volume of the sediment displaced by

the embedded object [L3]
[L2 ]
D = embedment depth (L]

,L = object's lateral dimensions, with
0.
LB
>
[L]
.-.
Ssu
"*T.
9.3
SHORT-TERM (IMMEDIATE)
BREAKOUT
Note: A, 0, B, and L, for the purposes of this

chapter, are the values determined in Section
9.2.1.
The short-term or immediate breakout force,

is
Fib,
determined (after Ref 9-1) from:
It will be necessary to measure or estimate

in order to determine F . If no site strength
data are available, an estimation can be made by
FIb
The recovery line force for immediate breakout,
using the strength profiles for seafloor sedi-
Flib, is:
ments presented
is
unusual
in Chapter 2.
the operation
or
If the sediment
is particularly
Fq[1.0 - 0.97 e-2"75(O/n)]
Flb
'Ib
Wb
(9-3)
Ws
(9-4)
critical,
the strength should be measured.

This
can' be done by testing piston or gravity core
samples or strength can be obtained from an
;
in-situ
test (see
procedures).
"rapidly -and
known,
If
the
Chapters 2 and
the
entry
object
for these
penetrated
velocity
is
more
accurately
the average undrained shear strength can
be estimated by inverting the penetration pro-
-..
diction equations of Chapter 8.
However,
this
Is a,complicated hand-procedure.
Another, and simpler, method for obtaining
be used where an object is placed gently
on a very soft cohesive seafloor.
It
";st
be
known that the object i:ipacted the bottom slowly

(at .< 2 ft/sac), and the object settled to an
embedment depth greeter than 0.25' B.
This
I.
method
should. only
be
"9
used
If the embedment
and
is
empirical
laboratory breakout
and
based
objects
on
tests [Ref 9-1]
with objects of various sizes and shapes.

varied from some as small
The
as a 3-inch
cube to those, as large as a 6;4-foot-diam sphere

or a 17.5-foot-long by 4.5-foot-wide
cylinder.
Other shapes in intermediate sizes were included

in a total of 57 individual breakout tests.
can
"Fcan
'
Equation 9-3
-field
be
see"
from 'Equation 9-3
approach F
as
q
approaches zero,
embedment,
the
0/8 approaches 1.
indicative of very
breakout
force
It
that Fib will

As 0/B
shallow
becomes
very
'small.
The'
normalized
immediate
breakout
(FIb/Fq) computed by Equation 9-3 is
force
plotted on
Figure 9.3-1 as a function of relative embedment
2.0
1.6
1.6
,-
1.0-
Ss.2
:"
if b'Dot
..-
ut
%t 9sdse)
". , ..,- ,.....-
_ CONSERVATIVE CURVE (used if
0.
10
.2
i not -brakout
desired)
Fi
02
"0.4 .0
000.0.
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Relative embedmehne depth. D/B
"Figure9.31.
Sdepth.
*
When data from Reference 9-1 for these

field and laboratory breakout tests are compared
estimates if the immediate breakout force when

the object's breakout is or is not desired (the
to the breakout force predicted by Equation 9-3,

77% of the data fall between limits 50% greater
upper and
operation
and
*
*
Normalieed immediate breakout force as a function

of relative embedment depth (after Ref 9-1).
breakout
If these limits are extended to 100% greater and

50% less than the equation's curve (2.0 FIb and
Equation 9-3 and required retrieval line ;urce

at the object would become 2 Fib # Wb -W.
If
FIb/2),
F
the operation requires a line load that will not
93% (all but 4)

data
are
fall within the limits,
for objects
whose
shape
embedment were accurately known.

It
that 'object dimensions, embedment
and
is probable
depth, and
average shear strength will not be known as well

for
problems
in
the
field.
Therefore,
~may' also
The
and
upper and
lower limits,
are
"Figure 9.3-1.
The predicted
force
fail
should
strength
the conservative value for inmediate

force is
cause breakout,
twice the value computed by
the conservative
value to pre-
vent immediate breakout is one-half the value

computed by Equation 9-3, and the maximum line
force at the object should be F
+ Wb-
Ws-
9.4
LONG-TERM BREAKOUT TIME PREDICTION
not be as good.
Fib/(2.0 Fq),
object
instance,
the
agreement between predicted and actual breakout
dimensions,
between
also
(2.0 F b)/Fq
plotted
on
immediate breakout
these
limits
embedment' depth,
are reasonably well-known.
and
Long-tmrm breakout considerations are most

important when it
is not desirable or not pos-
sible to apply a load as high as that required
when
for immediate breakout.
soil
of
The upper
and lower limits are also used for conservative

49,6
the
for
33% less than the' equation's curve (i.e. ,

within the area bounded by 1.5'Flb and Fib/ 1 . 5 ).
These
lower limits respectively).

If
is one of object retrieval,
This might be because
structural 'limitations
of
the
object
or
limitations imposed by available lines or lifting gear.
The rece
line
force applied at a
roughly constant level over an extended period
require accurate determination of several other
of time in an effort to cause object breakout is
sediment
called the long-term breakout line force, FlLb*
more complex
The
possible in most Navy field breakout problems.
long-term
portion
of
breakout
the
force,
long-term
carried by the sediment.

FLb
Fib,
breakout
is
that
engineering
properties
and
vastly
problem definition than would be
line force
Equation 9-6 is graphed on Figure 9.4-1 in
FLb is determined by:,
a plot of relative force level (FLb/FIb) versus

the time parameter.
Also shown are conservative
FlLb - Wb + Ws
(9-5)
limit curves recommended for estimating breakout

time if breakout is or is not desired (upper and
the
lower curves,
respectively).
breakout force is not a specific value

long-term
.'?'?.respectively,
but can be any significant force lower than the
immediate breakout force.
The unknown quantity
Equation 9-6
where
immediate
the
Unlike
breakout
force,
of the
The following
relationships
t
are used to
outside
'-
curves.
-0193(lo
log. (F/F
g10
b..force.
bounded
the
by
curves
the
in
limit
tw
Figure 9.4-1
FLb/A
(9-8)
of T is determined from Figure 9.4-1.

breakout time (in minutes) is calculated
tb a the time required for breakout to

b
occur when the long-term breakout
force Is applied (min]
for
the
That is,
based entirely on data for break-
it
is
times'
from
field
The curve is
tests,
tb
is
entirely
and
laboratory
determining
one
a best fit
9.5
of data from 76
theoretical
breakout
becomes
9)
time
is
available.
solution
possible.
It
will
BREAKOUT-AIOS
breakout
Breakout
with more weight given to the
no
2= 'T
T. 4,-(9
empirical.
If
aids
are
any
operations
that
reduce the force required for immediate breakout

or
Presently,
The
from
relationship defined by
and
9-7
the appropriate value
Equation 9-7 by rearranging the terms as follows.

(As in Equation 9-7, distance must be in
feet and force must be in pounds.')
T = time parameter
p = the average breakout pressure
applied to the sediment [psf]
field tests.
S "-
area
us. of
use
requires determination of the immediate breakout

Therefore, all information required for
384)'
Equations 9-6
when
the
T
The
mining the ratio FLb/FIb,
individual
'
limited data base available for
(9-7)*
The basis
used,
(p tb/0 )(B/O)
.t
"-.
are
calculating the immediate breakout force is also

required for the time calculation.
After deter-
4_6
tests:
(9-6)
"where:
out
FiLb
and lower curves.
for a specified long-
term breakout force [after Ref 9-1]:
upper
these empirical relationships, some values of

actual t
(which occur in the field) will fall
to occur.
determine, this time,
2 FLb and
the
They should be used to estimate a conservative

value of breakout time for field problemsq
in long-term breakout problems is the time that

this
iBecause
this lload will
need to be applied for breakout
"-?i.
for
These are plots of
the
time
required
for
long-term
breakout.
for
The
and
fnr achieving breakout when the immediate break-
likely
out
*Because this relationship is empiricaily based

and uses units not dimensionally coherent, it
is essential that the following units are used:
force in pounds, time in minutes, and length
In feet.
9.-7
following
force
is
discussion
too
high
provides
to
be
suggestions
applied
or
the
..
-...
......
.7
2.0
".91.6
"CONSERVATIVECURVF.(used
1.4
-6
r.
if breakout is desired)2x FLb-
-1 .2-
U0.6
r---
e.A
0.4
0.2 -CONSERVATIVE CURVE (usd
breakout isnot desired) Fb
0o
10o
102
10
Breakout timne
psrsmeter,T
Figure 9.4-1. Normalized long-term breakout force as a function
of breakout time parameter(after Ref 9-1).
Sexample,
long-term breakout time for the force that can

be applied is too long. Although most discussion is on reducing breakout force, most breakout aids also reduce breakout time at a particular force level.
It should also be noted that
reduction *in breakout force by one-hal'f, for
is not the same as a lowering of the
retrieval line load by'one-half., Line load is
With water jetting, a pump is connected to

the end of the tube and water is forced through
the tube into the soil. Jetting is preferable
because the positive pressure is more effective,
and the turbulence of water%flow may cause some
soil erosion and reduce the object-to-soil
contact area.
With drainage tubes no pumps are used. In
equal to breakout force plus object buoyant

weight minus displaced soil weight, as defined
in Equation 9-5.
effective way to reduce the force

for breakout is to improve the flo-.eof
water into the soil around the object. This can
this technique, the act of pulling up on the

object draws "ater through the tubes into the
spaces below the object.
It is essential that
the free end of the tube does not clog.
Ftield tests [Ref 9-7] have demonstrated
"that a 50 to '77. reduction of the breakout force
is possible with both water jets and drainage
tubes.
The reduction for rounded objects was
greater-than for square blocks.
It should be
be done either passively with drainage tubes or

actively with water jets. Both consist of tubes
that are forced beneath the object, or may be a
expected that the effectiveness of these aids

will vary significantly, depending on specific'
soil and embedment conditions.
part of the object if a breakout problem is

antici'pated.
Preferably, the tubes should have
openings along the side to improve water flow
No* guidelines exist for the design of

either water Jets or drainage tubes.
Where
used, however,- the spacing between openings
'all along the tube.
(both. along -the tu,,ls and between the tubes)
9.5.1
Jetting and Drainage Tubes
"An
S.'equired
.
9-8.
----
"should be
over
minimized'and ,.pt
the
entire
contact
relatively constant
area
of
the object,
develop along the object's side.

will
facilitate
object-soil
9.5.2
Eccentric Loading
if
the object is
rather than through
lifted from one end
its center.
In Chapter 4,
the concept of effective area is introduced with

t
"respect
to
bearing
capacity
prediction
eccentrically loaded, foundations.
for
This concept
also anplies to breakout prediction.
"force is
flow
area.
and
A
reduce
lateral
the
force
greater than the passive resistance of the sedi-
A reduction in the required breakout force
"will result
water
contact
These openings
The uplift
essentially applied to a reduced area,
raising the applied stress in that area.
ment (estimated as 2DLs u) is likely necessary to

achieve adequate movement.
If possible, the
object should be loaded alternately in opposite
directions
openings
to
increase
along
the
the
sides.
development
This
process
of
of
rocking or rolling may also result in a reduction of object embedment depth and,
an
additional
reduction
therefore,
in necessary
breakout
force.
After
that section is broken free, the force is trans-
9.5.5
Breakaway Parts
"ferred to
the remaining'area and breaks it free.

A rough estimate of the effect of this procedure,
is
S...
"
that breakout force may be reduced by up to
50%.
Long,
effect.
"easy
narrow objects should see the most
In many
breakout
limitations
field cases,
aid to use;
on
the
this may be an
however
object
structural
could
prevent
eccentric attachment of the applied load.

..9.5.3
CclcLoading
Objects that are meant to be placed on the

seafloor can be designed with "breakaway parts."
That is,
the remainder of the object upon application of

uplift loading.
be reduced through cyclic application of uplift
unrestrained for vertical motion. This procedure
and
resulting
pore water
development
pressures.
of
positive
For example,
"based
can be useful for instrumentation packages that

are
to 40% with as few as 10 load applications for
9.5.6
"and more
soils.
plastic.
tainea,
During the time between load
and the loads
10 minutes or less.
long periods of time
Altering Buoyant Weight
This procedure will be less
applications, an uplift .,force equal to the

buoyant weight of the object should be main-
,-
seafloor for
before retrieval.
effective with soils which are more fine-grained
on' the
on
earthquake
stability
analysis
[Ref 9-8], breakout force may be reduced by 30
"clayey silt
in sea-
water and leave the object parts to be recovered
Ssediment
.- ,
links or connectors, that corrode
of some cohesive sediments can
force
The immediate breakout force is
effectively reduced to the level required to

break any connectors- to the parts that remain
behind.
This situation can be achieved with
weak
"The strength
the portion of the object in contact
with the sediment is designed to separate from
should be applied every

Benefits
from this effect
The
retrievAl
cantly reduced if
line
it
force may be signifi-
is possible to decrease the
object's underwater weight. This can be done by

pumping air into enclosed spaces, attachment of
lift
object
bags,
or removal
prior
to
of
heavy parts of
attempting
breakout.
the
These
may occur wnere wave actions affect the recovery
methods do not alter the breakout force required
vessel and cause unsteady recovery line loads,
but may be useful where the breakout force is

not the largest component in the retrieval line
9.5.4
load.
Air- or litt-bag-assisted recovery may
introduce potentially dangerous situations where
Rocking'or Rolling
foc cPrior to lifting, if a significant lateral

force can be applied- to an object embedded in
retrieval line control can be lost. For example;

trapped air will expand in~velum. as the object
relatively stiff soil (s
rises from the seafloor or can be lost if
> 3 psi)i openings may
the
object's
orientation
changes.
positively
the
object.
The procedures
outlined
in this
buoyant object will become dangerous to anything
chapter apply as if
above
soil is a solid object and embedment is consid-
9.6
it
as it
moves toward the water surface.
the foundation plus trapped
ered to be at the depth of skirt penetration.

The skirted foundation may also introduce problems during recovery operations.
Soil trapped
OTHER FACTORS
Irregular Shape or Nonuniform Embedment
within the skirt system may drop away at any

time following breakout.
(It usually ends up on
Depth
the deck of the recovery vessel.)
9.6.1
Laboratory and field tests used tQ define

the empirical equations in this chapter have not
been conducted with objects that are irregular
9.7
in shape
9.7.1
depth.
or
"
that have a nonuniform embedment
The equations presented,
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
-
Problem 1 - Recovery of a Large Long
and the proce-
Cylinde
dures of Section 9.2.1 for calculating effective

0, B, and L, can still be used for these unusual
9.7.1.1
cases.
However, this introduces a higher level
of uncertainty and results in the computational
Problem Statement: Determine if
is possible to quickly lift
it
an embedded, cylin-
procedures becoming less accurate.
drically shaped object with the limited capacity

of an available recovery vessel and, if this is
.9.6.2 Waiting Time
not possible, to estimate how long it will take

for the object to break free of the seafloor at
a lower force.
An object
extended
at rest in the seafloor for an
period
of
time
before
recovery
Data:
is
diameter,
A large,
long cylinder--20 feet in
200 feet
long,
attempted may require a higher immediate break-
and an underwater
weight of 1 million pounds fell to the seafloor,
out force (calculated by Equation 9-3) than if

recovery is attempted relatively soon after the
impacting' at an unknown velocity. It was located

immediately and found lying approximately hor-
object
zontal
is embedded.
This
occurs
primarily
because
in 200 feet
the weight of the object consolidates

the sediment and increases sediment strength.
If the object Is in place for an extended time
approximately
(perhaps
million-pound
strength
month
or
more),
increase can occur.
a
It
of
half its
water and embedded

diameter in
to
the seafloor
significant
can be compen-
uplift
force
at '200-foot
water
depths, for only 10 to 20 minutes without septdusty damaging the
sated for by
increasing the soil strength used

in the calculations.
No recommendation is made
ousy
dmagng
herecovery gear.
But, it can
apply up to 3 million pounds of uplift force for
here because
several days.
9.6.3
located; no
obtained.
of the complexity of soil-related

factors that influence the amount. of the change.
The seafloor was determined to be

a terrigenous silty clay when the cylinder was
Foundation Skirts
other
data
,
on the
sediment
were
If a foundation has skirts extending below

its base (useful to provide an increased resis-
9.7.1.2 Problem Solution:

The analytical
and computational procedures used to solve this
tance to lateral loads), the skirts- will raise

the required immediate breakout force,
The
problem are shown below. They foilow the proc.dures outlined by the flow chart in Figure 9.1-1'.
skirts
and discussed l" this chapter.
force
the
soil
failure
surfaces
0W
[see Figure 9.7-1]. A recovery vessel can be at

It can apply a 4.5-.
the site within 2 weks.
to a
greater subbotto.a depth. The sediment contained

within the skirts must be considered as part of
9.10
".".
4,.
'
,t~oq.o"
L20 feet~t
... ..
."%
Problem data.
Jof
depth 0
B = object width -20 feet

L a object length - 200 feet
Wb - submerged weight - 1,000.000 lbs
"Da equivalent embedment depth -to be
alculated from actual embedment
Figure 9.7-1. Problem sketch and data for example problem 1.
Problem 9.7.1
1.
Determine the object and embedment
"characteristics:
COMPUTATIONS
Total Volume
2
(200 ft)
Z
A = cross-sectional area at the mudline

L
A z (20 ft)(200 ft)
equivalent length
B a width
""
31,400 ft 3
n(1O ft)
V = object volume below the seafloor
4,000 ftz
L a 200 ft (known)
SOz equivalent depth below the seafloor
"Wb
B * 20 ft (known)
submerged weight
31.400 ft
(20 ft)(200 ft)
Vs
L=x B
Wb : 1,000,000 lb
2.
Check if this is a problem of shallow

oefdment.
I's 0/1 < 1?
""
Yes,
3.
Determine soil characteristics.

Because
the soil is cohesive and the Impact velocIty is not known. the average properties
for s. :ndiy must be determined. These
may bfrom
profiles of typical
"soil properties provided In Chapter 2.
s
averaged from 0 to (0+8) ft

U 20
ao
b averaged from 0 to Oft
0.392
0/n < 1
(0 * 8) * 7.8S ft + 20 ft * 27.8S ft
From Chapter 2 [Figure Z.2-4);
(avragd)
271 ps
From Figuro 2.2-4 (assuming a linear variation

in y between'O3 and 100 ft. where y varies from
40 lb/ft ;
(averaged) 20.8 lb/ItO
9.g11.
, .S
7.85 ft
20 ft ,
0
i
Problem 9.7-1
4.
COMPUTATIONS
Determine F
W and W - Although actual
impact velocity'is not known, it is riot
likely to have been less than 2 fps.
Therefore, Equation 9-1 must be used in
lip
.4 the simpler method which uses
5(4,000 ftz)(271 lb/ftz)(1 + 0.2(0.392)][1

+ 0.2(20 ft/200 ft)] = 5,960,000 lb
Ws
(31,400 ft
)(20.8 lb/ft 3 )
650,000 lb
Equation 9-2.
5 A s0[1 + 02
u
1 0
0
3
B 8
Wb (known)
W=
s
5.
V x y
s.b
Determine the immediate breakout force

(Fib) for "best" and conservative estimates
of hat force (from the center and top
curves on Figure 9.3-1)
best estimate FIb/F
0.67
.- .
Fib(best estimate)
(0.67) Fq= (0.67)

q
(5,960,000 lb) = 3,990,000 lb
conservative FIb/Fq = 1.34

FIb(conservative) = (1.34) Fq = 7,990,000 lb
6.
Determine the line load for immediate

breakout (F
) assuming best and conservative FIb fo41s (Equation 9-4)
F
+
FlIb =Fib
Wb
Flib = FIb + 1,000,000 lb - 650,000 lb
7.
Is this recovery vessel capable of lifting

the object from the seafloor with one short
duration pull? (Is F
< available load?)
Perhaps. There is about a 50:50 chance that it

will.
Although the best estimate for F
is
just below the short-duration uplift ca4Pity of
the recovery vessel, the conservattle estimate
of FIb is nearly twice that capacity.
8.
When it is not clear if immediate breakout

will occur under an applied load, additional information can be provided by
determining best and conservative estimates
for the time required for breakout (tb) at
that applied load (Equation 9-5).
b
F1Lb = uplift capacity s 4,500,000 lb
= FIb + 350,000 lb
4,340,000 lb (best estimate)
= 8,340,000 lb (conservative)
F Lb
FLbWbb
T is obtained from Figure 9.4-1, and tb is
Lb
- Wb +
llb
4,500,000 lb - 1,000,000 lb
4,150,000 lb
4,150,000 Ib
650,000 lb
.
1.0b4
".1.
calculated from' Equation 9-9.

T(best)
tb uT
7 x '103
T(conservative)
4,150,000 lb
a 3 x 10'
*
1.038 lb/ft.
tb = T(7.85)4/(20)2(1,038) a (9.12 x 10")

t(best estimate) - 64 rin
*
tb(conservative)
9.12
2,740 win a 46 hr
Problem 9.7-1
SANALYTICAL
PROCEDURES'
COMPUTATIONS
9.
INITIAL CONCLUSION - The recovery vessel is not likely to be able to lift the object from
the seafloor by applying a 4.5 million-lb line load for 10 to 20 min. The best estimate
for breakout to occur under that load is 64 mir. However, to be reasonably sure of object
breakout at that uplift load, it may have to be applied for 46 hr. The time required for
object breakout at the lower (sustainable) load should be examined.
10.
Determine the long-term breakout force

(F ) the recovery vessel can apply
(E
tin9-5).
9F
%q
F
= uplift capacity = 3,000,000 lb
lib
F
=
W+
Lb
FFtLb - Wbb
Ws
= F1Lb - Wb + W
= 3,000,000 lb
= 2,650,000 lb
Determine t for best estimate and conservative estikates of the problem (Figure
9.4-1 and Equations 9-8 and 9-9).
11.
- 1,000,000 lb + 650,000 lb
2,650,000 Tb
,640,000 lb
", :001
Fib
FIb(best)
6b6
T(best) a 4 x 104
T(conservatlve)
"FLb
P
2 x 106
2 650 000 lb
4,000 ftz
tb x T(7.85)4/(2O)2(662)
(1.430 x !0"2) T
tb(best) a 574 min a 9.6 hr'

tb(conservative) Z 28,700 min - 20 days
12.
PROBLEM CONCLUSION - If it is reasonable under other (unspecified) conditions that exist,.

the 4.5 million-lb line load should be applied to the object for as long as it can safely
be sustained.
However,,the object has less than a 50-50 chance of breaking free within
10-20 min. This chance can be improved by applying the load eccentric to the object's
center of gravity or by using other breakout aids discussed in.Section 9.5 (for example,
repetitive short-duration applications of the'4.5 million-lb force).
If it does not break free at this load, there is a slightly better than 50-50 chance for
breakout within 9.6 hr at a line load of 3 million lb. To be reasonably sure of breakout
at this lower line load, the load may have to be exerted for up to 20 days. Breakout aids,
if they can be applied, should speed up the recovery. Note: If the object does not break
free under a 4.5 million-lb load applied for 10 or 20 min, this effort is not "wasted."
This load application serves as a type of breakout aid which should lower the amount of
time-the 3 million lb load will have to be applied before breakout occurs.
9.7.2
Problem 2
Recovery of a Skirted
3-day
Problem Statement: Determine If
9.7.2.1
Is
reasonable
small
to expect
foundation
from
quick
the
recovery
seafloor' with
it
of
the
limited capacity of a specific workboat.

-Data:
o
circular
Is a heavy, small
footing that will be installed for a
The
experiment
and
then
recovered.
Skirts
were added to the perimeter of the footing to

prevent horizontal movement from forces applied
Foundation
foundation
during the
skirts
experiment.
Is' expected,
Full embedment of the
but the footing base will
rest approximately on the seafloor surface,
The
footing Is 4 feet in diameter, and has an underwater weight of 3,000 pounds [see Figure 9.7-2].
The skirts extend 0.8 foot below the footing
9.13'
The
base.
abyssal
location of the experiment is on an
hill
at
47*N latitude.
approximately 165E
seafloor
longitude,
maintaining
force
that
level.
The vessel that will install and

9.7.2.2
remove the foundation costs $10,000/day to lease

and is
and'
indefinitely.
capable of lifting 7,000 pounds off the
Problem Solution:
and computational
procedures
The analytical
used
.-
to evaluate
this problem are shown belew.
.-
foundation base
.......-..........
diameter
Poblem darm d
- fooing diamete = 4.0 feet

D0- ebedment depth - 0.8 feet
Wb " submerged weight - 30Wo Ubs
Figure 9.7-2. Problem sketch and dP., for example problem 2.
Problem 9.7.2
COMPUTAT IONS
1:
Determine the object and embedment

characteristics (Vs A, L, 8, 0, and Wb).
!.(4ft)
4(O .8 ft)
V5
A- 14.0 it:).
10.0 ft
"2:'
12.0 ftz
3aL
(A) 1/2 -(12.)
0 a0.8 ft
0.8 ft
3.-55ft " 0. 225
2.
Check if
this Is a probleooof shallow
embent.
Is 0/8 < 1?
Yes,
9.14
0/S < I
.*
312.6U
-3.55
ft
Problem 9.7-2
COMPUTATIONS
3.
(he soil
Deterbine soil characteristics.
Figure 2.2-3 in Chapter 2
type is unknown.
indicates that sediment on abyssal hills in
the deep ocean is probably pelagic clay
(possibly a siliceous ooze). Figure 2.2-1
indicates it could be either, as the
geographic location falls between large
zones of each soil type. Examine both
Properties of s averaged
possibilities.
from 0 to (D+B) ft, and of yh aVeraged from
0 to 0 ft, must be determineg.
B = 0.8 ft + 3.55 ft = 4.4 ft
o0
From Figure 2.2-7 for a pelagic clay:

su
130 psf
20.0 lb/ft
From Figure 2.2-8 for a siliceous ooze:

148 psf
su
25.0 lb/ft 3
4.
Determine Fq, W
F
Note: Although the soil types may be different,

they have approximately the same strength at the
depth of interest. An average value for su of
139 psf will be used in these calculations.
Although yb for the two soils are somewhat more
3
different, an average value of 22.5 lb/ft will
be used, as b plays a minor role in the
calculations.
Fq = 5 A su[1 + 0.2(0/)][31 + 0.2(B/L)]
and We:
a 5(12.6 ftz)(139 psf)(1 + 0.2(0.8/3.55)]

[1 + 0.2(3.55/3.55)] - 10,980 lb
[Equation 9-1]
Wb x
,000 Ib
S= ya
5.
*
Determine the immediate breakout force,

F , for best and conservative estimates of
tAit force (from the center and top curves
[Section 9.3]
on Figure 9.3-1).
(10.0 ft
)(22.5 lb/fts) x 225 lb
best estimate FIb/Fq a 0.48

FIb (best estimate) = 5,270 lb
FIb (conservative)
"6.
10,540 lb
F ib * Wb - WS 0 Flb + 3,000 lb
225 lb
Determine the line load for immediate

) assuming best and
breakout (F
See Equation 9-4
, forces.
conservative9
(Section 9.3].'b
Fl 1 b
7.
Is 'this vessel capable of quickly lifting

the object'from the seafloor with its
7,000-lb lift'capacity?
Probably not. The best estimate for Flb

is above the vessells lift capacity.
Therefore, there Is less than a 50:50
chance that immediate breakout would occur.
S.
Determine the long-term breakout force

(F ) the vessel can apply (from the
exitting lift capacity, F1Lb, and Wb).
Equation 9-5.
alft'capacity
F
f7
FI. l
FLbm FLb - Wb +Ws
See
Flib 38,045 (best estimate),

13,315 (conservative)
7,000 lb
= 7,000 lb.- 3,000 lb + 225 lb
4,275 lb
Problem 9.7-2
9.
COMPUTATIONS
Determine t for best and conservative

estimates o the problem.
The center and
top curves of Figure 9.4-1 are used, as are
Equations 9-8 and 9-9.
FLb
_ 4,275 lb
Fib(best)
8,045 lb
T(best estimate)
0.531
3 x l,.
T(conservatlve) = 1.5 x iO7
'b
=
A
4,250 lb
3 .7psf
12.6 ft
-.
T(0.8 ft)
(3.55 ft)z(337 psf)
T D4
b2 P
(9.64 x 10.5) T
tb(best estimate)
29 min
tb(conservative) = 1,450 min
10.
PROBLEM CONCLUSION -The best estimate of time required to lift the foundation off a
pelagic clay or siliceous ooze seafloor (the likely soils at the site) is 29 min. It is
possible that as much as 24 hr will be required for the foundation to break free. If this
range of uncertainty is not acceptable due to potential high cost (another day at'
$]O,OUO/day) or for other reasons (covert requirements, for instance), then other steps
should be taken.
The following are two possibilities.
(1) Although most breakout aids
discussed in this chapter are not applicable due to the very deep site, passive drainage
tvbes could have been designed into the foundation in anticipation of a potential breakout
problem. They should be very effective on a footing that has only its skirts embedded in
soil.
(2) A breakaway footing can be designed so that the skirts and all or part of the
footing are left on the seafloor when an uplift force of 7,000 lb is applied.
9.8 -REFERENCES
9-4.
C.L. Liu.
against
9-1.
H.J.
objects
Civil
R-755.
24 hr
Lee.
from
Breakout of partially embedded

cohesive
seafloor
soils,
Naval
Laboratory. Technical
Port Hueneme, Calif., Feb 1972.
Report
Engineering
breakout
Engineering
Civil
R-635.
9-5.
Ocean sediment holding strength

of
embedded objects,
Laboratory, Technical

P.M. Byrne and W.D.L.
Naval
Report
Aug 1969.
Finn.
"Breakout of
submergeJ structures buried to a shallow depth,"
9-2.
"Breakout'
of
partially
Canadian
Geotechnical
efbedded objects from cohesive seafloor soils,"

in Proceedinis
of- the
Ocean
Technology'
pp 146-154.
Conference,
9-6.
Houston,
Tax.,
1973.
(OTC'
1904)
9-3.
B.J. Muga.
Ocean bottom breakout forces,
including field test data and the development of
an
analytical
Laboratory,
method,
Naval
Technical
Civil
Report
A.W.
clays,
Papers,
Skempton.
Journal,
vol 15,
The bearing
1978,
capacity of
Building Research Congress,

Collected
Oiv 1, Pt 3.
London, England, 1951,,
pp 180-189.
Engineering
R-591.
Port
Humneme, Calif., Jun 1968.
9-16
I
9-7.
K.O. Vaudrey.
Evaluation of bottom breakNaval Civil Engineering
Flib
Line force required to achieve immediate'

breakout CF]
FlLb
Line force applied for long-term breakout

[F]
(qDownward)
bearing capacity [F]
Object length (maximum horizontal
out reduction methods,

Laboratory,
Technical
Note
Apr 1972.
N-1227.
Port
Hueneme, Calif.,
9-8.
H.J.
Lee,
"Geotechnical
B.O.
analysis
Edwards,
of
and M.E.
Field.
submarine
slump,
dimension) [L]
Eureka, California," in Proceedings of the Ocean

Technology
Conference,
Houston,
Tex.,
3981.
Long-term breakout pressure applied to

the sediment [F/L 2 ]
(OTC 4121)s
Undrained shear strength of the sediment

[F/LZ]
9.9
Time parameter used in evaluating

long-term breakout (not dimensionally
coherent)
tb
Time required for breakout to occur when

the long-term breakout force is applied
SYMBOLS
Horizontal cross-sectional area of an

embedded object at the mudline [L 2 ]
Object width (minimum horizontal

dimension) [L]
of the object
Equivalent embedment depth
(LI
Wb
Submerged weight of object (F]
(T]
s
Volume of object below tt. mudline'(or

of sediment displaced) [i?]
Immediate breakout force carried by the

sediment [F]
Buoyant weight of sediment displaced [F]
FLb
Long-term breakout force carried by the

sediment [F]
Yb
Buoyant unit weight of sediment [F/Ll]
9-17
4Z.
Chapter 10
SCOUR
10.1
INTRODUCTION
10.1.1
*
sent selected experimeatal and field data helpful in s~.ructure design, (3) evaluate coimmon,
scour prevention techniques, and (4) present
methods for minimizing scour.'
Objectives
Structures located on the seafloor are

susceptible to failure caused by sediments
eroding from beneath 'or a~round their foundagenralThe
isusedin
"courTe tem
tion.
-'sense
*sion
without reference
mechanism of the process
of sediments that
deprssin
gneraora
- to the cause or
to describe this eroresults in a local .
loerin ofthe ea-
shear stres's approach is the analytical

mt..od most often used to describe sediment
related to this mean shear stress. In the shear

stress approach the flow field and 'boundary
ad
nd t nlfdag
lae ar dfi d,
forces on individual sand grains are
calculated. The major. fault of the theory is
that the role of turbulent fluctuations in
inta
ngsdm tmo on snt
niee.
Turbulence in the flow can erode sediment even
the
seafloor are not well-underst~ood and

ca~iote clcultedor
stiatedwit a igh
degree of accuracy. In addition to t"is uncer-
though
tainty, most of what is known is from historical
obsrvaion
scor of
efecs lon pies nd
*
V(e.g.,
piers in relatively shallow ocean water and in

rivers. In many of these cases, the significant
or 'dominant forces causing the scour are not
~typical of. more tranquilI deep ocean conditions
'Th
the
mean shear
stress
is near zero.
Therefore, two flows with the same mean shear

stress can have substantial differences in
velocity and pressure fluctuations.
ma os pi
(tcatc) pp ch o
praht
Temcocpc (tcatc
prdcig s imn mo on hsbn su etd
sediment transport in streams (Ref 10-1 and
102 an mybe plibeto cas. Frh ,
102 an mybe pli beto cas. Frh,
a turbulence spectrum may be correlated with
sediment suspension, much as mean wind-velocity
.*..for
oscillatory bottom currents 'from shortperiod waves in shallow water and high-velocity
aenttypically found in deep.water). Even if
parallel deep ocean situations ,are rare, this
chapter presents an overall picture of scour in
-order,
her
erosion. The basis of this approach is that a

mean shear stress can be described- based on mean
flow parameters, and erosion of sediment can be
floor. For example, both sediment erosion in

the vicinity of a structure and the general
lowering of the seafloor resulting from a change
inwve
re limte
efered o a scur.inertia
ALIher, wen, nd ow uchscou wil ocur
on
1..2
to-give the iteader' a more complete..

understanding of the processes. The objectives of
~~~this
chapter are to:
(1) describe scourTe
mechanisesmiIn co'hesionlo.ss sediments, (2) pro-
10.
isnwue
(Rf1 3]
toc claea*ptum
10.1 .3 10~
fwvs
usa
pr edr
whn
nlyia
approaches are difficult or not satisfactory is
to
rely
on
scour,
important
modeled
structure)
.
physical
evaluatina
model
proper
testing;
scaling
elements
simultaneously
(flow,
is
but,
for
sonal
all
the
even
of
sediment,
extremely
Laboratory
and field
structures and waves.
Ssediment
scour
directional
waves
and
least
diffi-
as
can
bridge
compare
uni-directional
be
extrapolated
the
flow,
to
test
turbulence
greater
modeling
problems
that would
were
not
occurrence
of
these
primarily
on
the
located in
test
deposition or removal
However,
local
if
significant
scour at the
ConversEly,
of
experience
substantial
seasonal
collection
are
a structure located in
active area of breaking waves
sedi-
currents
structure could be
could
scouring
and
Reference
10-6
and brief discussion
of
field scour observations.

Sections 10.3
such
for
scour
The
and
10.4
estimating seasonal
type
combined
may be
to
present techniques
and local
estimated
provide
rough
estimate
smaller thcn prototype waves.
10.2.2
similarity in
scour.
Each
independently
total scour'likely at a structure.
If
two
water
the highly
presents
Signifi-
to be maintained,
and
deep water, well
heigt.t and periid of waves that can be produced

in a laboratory flume are limited to values much
model and prototype is
occur,
present,
comparatively minor local scour.
scale.
exist.
depends
seasonal
same cannot be said for
caused by wave action.
relative
substantial.
with
model
field
changes
A structure
present,
abutments
favorably
types
ment.
without
Laboratory
The
scour
little
uni-
studies of scour from nonsteady flow,
cantly
flow
level
structure
beyond the breaker zone, would likely experience
This supports the contention that,
Unfortunately,
model
reversing
in
ture.
depth.
small
in modeling
su,--ks
scour at
10-4]
not corre-
modeling
structures
achieved.
(Ref
for
results
Some
slowly
modeling
data.
when
around
been
of
pie's
field
at
or
has
results
data have
particularly
well,
the
local scour caused by the presence of the struc-
cult.
lated
seafloor
if
of
and
the
Oeep Water, Wave-Induced Scour
the bed
material--sand grains--in the model must also be
Another mechanism that contributes to scour

reduced in
model -sand
other
size.
Attempts have been made to
(angularity, weight, etc. ) by using
materials,
gravity = 1.06).
-
introduce
results
other
to
such
as
This is
gilsonite
is w*ve-jnduced excess pore pressure and subseiswv-nueexssprpesreadubquent water flow in the seabed [Ref 10-7 through
(specific
10-9].
very aifficuit and may
unIcertainties
field situations.
in
applying
the
In
at
one
,
least
platform.
But,
scour pattern observed in

"
replication
liquefac~ion.
of
The
these phenomena
effect
cited by the structure
on
the
on scour
itself
is
complt-
and by simultane-
action of currents and forces on the structure.

Although the effects can not be to quan-
the
ot
effects
be dramatic in deep water, even causing sediment
_instan
ce
[Ref 10-5],
however,
gilsonite was
effectively used in a model study to reproduce a
f
d s
r
Ious
suppfteld scou
siturepcation
form.
a
n offe pe
msupported
The
seafloor are nct fully understood, but they can
tified,
the field wai &cnieved
they
increase
with
increasing
wave
only after a long series of modeling attempts.

. ,
In general, although turbulence is a i'tgniftcant
goaplatform
and decreasing water depth.

In a field
est of scour protection systems for a research
in water 100 feet deep, some hinged
factor,
concrete
in
Sdescription
sediment
is
length
scour,
not possible,
its
and
results have not produced roliable
analytical
model
study
scour
protection
slabs,
17-1/2
by
6-1/2 feet in size, were found raised from their
quantitative
horizontal
scour estimates.
positions
[Ref 10-10].
to
Seven, slabs
vertical
positions
had broken away from
"their hinges.
10.2
SCOUR TYPES
10.2.1
Seasonal
Sediment
and Local Scour
erosion
(scour)
structure. may be divided
10.3
from
around
into two types:
ESTIMATING SEASONAL SCOUR
'The
sea-
best
method
scour at a location is
M02
for
estimating
seasonal
from historical data for
the site.
cannot
If
these are not available and data
be gathered,
maximum expected
10.4
STRUCTURES
scour can be estimated from empirical correlations (Ref 10-11).

The maximum seasonal sedilevel
ment
Aymx=
\-
change
1.15 He
where He
(which is
is
roughly
ESTIMATING LOCAL SCOUR AT SEAFLOOR
seasonal
estimated
4.1
by:
(10-1)
is the annual extreme wave height

the significant wave height exceeded
An accurate estimate of the amount of scour

to be expected for a footing of given size and
shape in
possible.
environment
specified
not
is
yet
Most knowledge on the initiation and
extent of scour has been gained from field

observations or from model testing (where appropriate modeling is possible).
12 hr/yr) EL, in feet].

Ref.The annual
extreme
wave height is
[after
10.4.1
(10-2)
modeling
laboratory
of
Observations
together with the techniques of dimensional
Effect of Seafloor Factor. on Scour
Ref 10-12]:
"*m.
He
where:
..
H + 5.6
4.
N = average monthly significant wave

height EL, in ft]
a
standard deviation of the monthly
average significant wave heights
EL, in ft]
The water depth at whichAy
"M
change,
limit of significant
dc,
also
termed
the
sediment
close-out
depth, has been determined to be [Ref 10-13] the

water depth:
(10-4)
a2
Sdc
or equals the depth of the most shallow depth

contour parallel to shore if this condition is
present and > than 2 H.
,
.(20w)
Flow
Velocity
and
Equilibrium
current velocity reaches a critical value.

Figure 10.4-1 demonstrates the concept of equilibrium scour depth for a coarse material at a
pier in uni-directional
"2.0 .
flow.
Scour begins at
mIhmg
-M
____
Is
Equation 10-1 provides a rough estimate

of maximum' seasonal
sediment
level
change.
A single bathymetric survey will often
show the presence of one or more longshore bars.

The position of the largest longshore bar can be
used to estimate the position of maximum scour.
The magnitude of maximum scour averages twice
(j
10.4.1.1
Model tests on scour at bridge

Scour Depth.
piers show that scour ceases to increase after
The seaward
level
significant factors are summarized below.
occurs is:
N(103)
""
analysis have provided insight into the. effect

of some important structural and environmental
factors on scour.
The effects of the most
the maximum bar height but may be 4s much as

three times the maximum bar height in some
locations [Ref 10-11].
Site-specific data for
the beach
of
interest
are
required
to obtain
appreciably more accurate predictions of scour

than are given. in
Equations I0-1 to 10-4
(Ref 10-11].
(
S~10.3
Ito
oj
0,
3
3
Msa fleW
Mi.,
P"
Figure 10.41. aear water scour and general sediment

transport near a pile.
iW"
an obstruction when the velocity in the undisturbed area outside the influence of the struc-
2.5-
Bcd materiai, d
ture is roughly 0.5 times the critical velocity

(velocity that will
initiate sediment
o-
movement
2.0
on an unobstructed flat bed).

As velocity
increases, scour in the vicinity of the obstruc-
tion
increases
before
the
rapidly
critical
until
the
velocity
is
+
. 1.5
0.55nun
0.85
1.
0
+ -
8070
0.70
+ -
M~
critical
reached
0 .- *.0
'-
0 9
o -
is
--
,E
termed clear water scour since sediment upstream

of the obstruction is not being eroded and
carried downstream.
( 0.5
.9
The maximum scour depth at
scour depression
about
10% less
recent model
than
data
its maximum
[Ref 10-14]
Figure 10.-
to a depth
value.
"
'
in motion and
actually decreases
'
j|D-piednYS
o
0
the structure occurs at the critical velocity.

At velocities above the critical velocity,
sediment over the entire bed is
depth
Fs
1.0
0.5
___"_
2.0
1.5
Variation of maximum clear water

scour depth with seafloor material
Some
diameter at a cylindrical pier (after
suggest that at
Ref 10.16).
very high velocities scour may actually begin to
increast
again,
but at a much
lower rate than
the initial part' of the curve in Figure 10.4-1.
bulence due to the presence of the structure, it
This concept of equilibrium depth. has also been
is more likely to erode.
observed in the ocean [Ref 10-15].
and it extends to the depth 'of the finer material, the scour depth will increase dramatically
10.4.1.2
Influence of Sediment Size.
For
to scour.
pile may vary from 2.3 to as little as 0.3 pile
Layered
depending on the composition of the
sand--specifically,
the
ratio of
the
sediment
is
not
shielding may affect erosion..
the
only
way
The peak in the
standard
curve in Figure 10.4-2 for' the 0.55-mm sand is
deviation of the grain size distribution to the
thought to reflect shielding of the fine sand by
median
the coarser material within the sample.
diameter'
[Ref 10-16].
The
curves
because of the finer material's lower resistance
sand-size sediment, the maximum scour depth at a

diameters,
If erosion does occur
in
Figure 10.4-2 show that relative scour depths as

much as two pile diameters will occur for sand
,
sizes
common
in the
indicate that,
ocean.
in,general,
The curves
scour
than poorly graded,
scour predictive techniques for piles

or small objects in the ocean are not yet'available.
Th.'depth and lateral extent of scour
experience
uniform mate-
reported
for structures in the ocean normally

exceeds the values reported for scour in areas
rials.
"without
10.4.1.3
Shielding.
Severe
scour
Scour Due to Waves and Currents.
Rational
well-graded materials
with higher, standard deviation will

less
10.4.1.4
also
can
10-20].
waves [Ref 10-5,

However,
some
10-15,
10-18
model
inves~tigations
through
occur when the surface sediment is composed of

material more erosion-resistant than material
[Ref 10-21] show that scour under the action of

waves and currents is no greater than for cur-
below
rents alone.
At' the Diamond Shoals Light,
current was noted to be primarily responsible
it
within the scour hole.
when a structure is
ment with
over
fine
a, coarse
sand,
For example,
located on a layered sedisand or a gravel

the
coarser
material
surface
ordinarily
may
experiences
higher velocities and greater
hot erode.
However,
for the scour that occurs [Ref 10-15], and scour
layer
when
depth sometimes decreased during storms.
it
Pres-
ently, no adequate explanation has been made foi-
tur-
this apparent contradiction.
10.4
'
.71
10.4.2
Structures Piercing the Water Surface
large structures.
As structure size is reduced
or as wave length is
More
data exist for piling and for large
cylindrical
structures
that
pierce
the
water
surface than for structures that do not.
Much
vortices
to form at the back of the cylinder,
begin
and the
lateral extent and depth of scour increase.
of the available data and general scour observa-
often,
situations that exist for piles and
tions are derived from model data, which must be
piers
is
carefully
tern,
the
evaluated
before
forms,
at
such
to
More field information, however,
should be forthcoming
occurring
application
large,
each
as observations of scour
deep water,
as' those
used
for
lent
a/D >> 1.0
oil
the
fluid
flow
the water
Given
the
length,
is
depth, wave
height,
length
is
vortex
shedding
for
For oscillatory flow,
the
from
as shown in the figure.
diameters
producing
'an
the scour pit

of
downstream
the
scour
asymmetrical
pit.
The scour pit around pile
larger
much
than
scour
that
groups can be
develops
around
Figure 10.4-4 combines field
individual piles.
and wave
and model data collected for scour at piles and
obtained
pile groups.
It can be used to roughly estimate
maximum scour at single piles, or at pile groups

in currents only, or at pile groups in currents
a=
Lsinh
1
(z xd/L.
In the figure, the ratio of scour

and waves.
depth to pile diameter is plotted against Ns, a
(15
(10-)
dimensionless sediment number commonly used for

describing sediment erosion [Ref 10-3). 'N is
determined by:
H = wave height [L]

d = water depth [L]
L = wave length (L]
where:
In deep water,
the wave period is used to
N
N0
.1)
calculate the deep water wave length as 'follows:"

LO
continual
The turbu-
similar tb that for steady flow
several
obstruction,
from:
alternately from
producing a highly
In flow from only one direction,
the cylinder diameter,
semi-orbital
In this flow pat-
shed
and extends two to three diameters
extends
figure are characterized according to the ratio

a/D, where a is the wave semi- -bital length at
and 0
is
the edge of the pile,
drical structures (like single piles) in waves,

Types of flow and patterns of scour in this
seafloor,
and
a cylinder.
cally
scour
differences between very large structures (like

deep water gravity platforms) and small cylin-
the
are
scour pit at individual piles develops symmetri-
The figure
field
wake
around
and
vortices
side of the cylinder,
offshore
Figure 10.4-3 shows flow and scour characillustrates
where a/D >> 1.0.
gravity plat-
at a circular cylinder.
about 0.4 D.
turbulent wake behind the cylinder.
recovery in the North Sea, are reported.
teristics
is
For
scour
the
depth
Mcst
a/D = 1.0,
field-problem.
""
increased,
"""o
2-
w,.here:
T2
u
S -
where:
(10-6)
g 05
(10-7)
(50-)
u = mean undisturbed current (or

laximum wave orbital velocity)
eL/T]
T - wave period CT]

g = gravitational acceleration [L/T 2 ]
S a specific gravity of the bed

material
g a gravitational acceleration [LT 2]
Several
values
texts
(e.g.,
Ref 10-3, 10-12)
of d/L and sinh (2 m d/L)
values of d/L 0 .
list
50
median sediment diameter
for various
For values of a/D considerably
When waves
and
currents are present,
the
less thlan 0.2, the flow approximates the smooth

frictionless fl.ow depicted in the figure. This
mean current velocity and the maximum wave

orbital velocity may be added to give a conser-
flow
vative value of u for Equation 10-7.
situation
and the, relatively
pattern shown are expected
mild scour
to occur
for very
Two design
limits are indicated in Figure 10.4-4, both of
10-5
IN
pile
urn
./0
~location of maximum scour
( 0
--
depth -0.03D
&ID I
depdi.-0.1D
*5,~-
--
-depth
>>
__
0.D
det
/
am
_ __
st-
-D
Figure 10.4-a Idealized wave-induced flow and scour patterns around a vertical cylinder (after Ref 10-22).
6.0
Maximum scour for pile groups

in currents anid
waves.
~~5.0
4.0
4.0
--
--
, Z-.Psand Sybert/Il
oo
do
(Ref 10-9)
Au.-/
(Ref 10-15)
DeWs!! (Kitty Hawk
ED
(Ref 10-23)
6 2.0
"
"DeWlU (Duck)
""(Ref
O-23) /Mximum
(Ref
\areuers (Ref 10-4)

scour for single piles
inharsh environments; and pile
groups in mild ocean
environments, or in current
(only).
I
I
I
so
60
70
0-
1.0
.-1
10
0.0
ACMIR
t
30
20
a
40
Sedimn number, N
-Figure 10.4-4. Summary plot of field and model scour depth data
at single piles and pile groups.
which are in terms of the maximu

.
value for the
wava-induced
and
uni-directional
"relative scour
depth (a ratio of scour depth to

the pile diameter):
(1) maximum relative scour
current velocities at the bottom exceed 5 and

3 fps, respectively.
For severe ocean environ-
depth for single piles in harsh environments and

for pile groups in only current or in mild ocean
ments with both currents and waves,
environments;
mended.
depth
and
for pile
(2)
maximum
groups
relative
limit curve in
saximum
scour
in current and waves.

very
large
structures
Figure 10.4-4 is
(where
a/D << 0.2)
is
shown in Figure 10.4-5.

Scour depth and extent
for square- and hexagon-shaped structures are
"account
compared to these data for a cylindrical shape
water
pier
[Ref 10-4].
".value
of
depth,
shape,
sediment
However,
2.0,
Figure 10.4-4,
number,
pier
and pier angle of attack,

a
the
relative
scour
maximum
lower
under conditions
depth
limit
currents.
The
of waves' only and waves and

hexagon
with
point
in
the
direction
of' the flow and the circular shape

result in the least scour of the shapes in this
in
is recomended as a conservative
design value' [Ref 10-4], for all, but very large
study.
structures (where a&/ << 0.1).
For a square shape,
*tation producing the
however, the orien-
least scour is a flat side
A simple rule for estimating scour at pile

jroups.in severe ocean environments is not yet
perpendicular to the flow.

The low magnitudes of relative scour shown
")ossible.
")ver four
indicate
Relative
pile
scour depths
diameters
'Ref 10-15, 10-17, 10-19,
"structures
Atlantic
In the Gulf
Ocean -near
have
from three to
observed
that erosion around small structures

(like piles with high a/D values for the same a)
been
10-20] at pile-founded
of Mexico and
Cape
Hatteras,
and large structures differs considerably.
in 'the
N.C.
The
relationship between scour depth
It
diameter
and cylinder
Indicated by Figure 10.4-4 are appli-
appears that the most severe scour has occurred
cable to cylinders up to a few meters diameter
at
but do not reflect the smaller relative scour
structures
located
in ocean
areas' where
10.7"
recomi-
computing the maximum scour for single piles and

pile groups in a steady current that takes into
length,
the higher
The effect of structure shape on scour for
A somewhat complex method is available, for
L..--.
velocities
flow
(b)
(a)
(d)
edge o f scour pitk
m.'.mu
------
. Y
-
(c)
We
Waves.Only
Waves and
Current
Structure Shape
Ys
5 /D
xs/D
ys/D
xs/D
0.035
0.5
0.065
0.75
(a)' Truncatedcylinder
(height = D/4)
0.10
1.0
...--
(b)
Hexagon--point
into flow
0.003
0.5
0.04
0.50
(c)
Hexagon--flat side
into flow
0.045
1.0
0.07
1.0
(d)
Square--flat side
into flow
0.06
0.5
0.13
0.75
(e)
Square--point into
0.08
1.0
0.18
1.0
(a)
Surface-piercing
cylinder
flow
Figure 10.4-5. Scour comparison for very large circular, square and hexagonal cylinders of equal
croas-sectional area where a/D <<0.2 (after Ref 10-22).,
M...
10-8
"depths near
or
rock
very large objects,
outcrops
structures,
like shipwrecks
was not; no explanation was given in the study.
For very large
The other pipelines were not undermined.
[Ref 10-24].
model
data can provide
reasonably
For an
tion [Ref 10-26]:
foundation
is
much
more
sensitive
to
/ 2\0.2
Y
10.4.3
-. great deal more information is available

A
'about s:our at botto-piercing structures, like
where u is the mean flow velocity CLUT].

It is notable that Equation 10-8 indicates
that scour depth is more sensitive to changes in
piles and piers,
the value of pipe diameter than it
pipelines.
than is available for scour at

structures,
A general
like
footings
and
lack of data and apparent

10.4.3.2
around
as
significant
scour
as
igfcnt
cor
mechanisms
for
scour
shows a
forces as well as
Fgre14-
of events
for scour-
also rock in response
The object may
to ocean waves and pump
sediment from beneath itself', or animal under-
a ausaive
Scur
Scour aas a causative
mining can cause or increase settlements.
Small
hiding places
ited, and the problem of settling as a result of
tar marine animals or are created by them for
scour Is difficult to predict.
hatitats.
pipe is
-scour
usually
holes
settling.
studies of
pipeline
fixed in the flow.
under the
pipe do
scour,
the
the seafloor.
com-
steady uni-directional
can !ncrease scoior further.

and eventually the footing
At this elevation,
inrilling of
the
scour depression 'occurs.
Eventually,
fotgcabeopeey
red".
burldy
n~ilythe-o
s of its
buriedofppeins
to three-fourths
velocities from 1.2 to. 1.5 fps.
Larger burrowing animals and animals
subsides to 'a level below the original height of
In
the
footing can be completely buried.
diameter, burled to one-half of its diameter,

and placed on the seafloor surface.
The data
taken for
habitats
result
not
Its
of
were
a footing become
Therefore,
Figure 10.4-6 shows scour development
pleel bued
"pletely
buried,,
under
preying on others
Scour accelerates,
in a model study of pipelines initially:
likely sequence
mechanism however hat not been adequately evalu-
"In model
Figure 10.4-7
c 'u.
into the deepening scour pit.
Pipeline burial and pipe-
consderble
ttetion
attention.
k considerable
occurs.
initiated burial of a small object placed on the

seafloor. Flow and turbulence around the object'
local scour to develop.
As the material
beneath the structure is removed and the obje.t
becomes unstable, it drops progressively lower
line movement can also occur and have received
*.
is
bottom-resting structures due to waves are not
the
their own weight.
at footings
particular,
must withstand flow-induced
".
Scour
also difficult to assess.

In addition to the
flow complexities, the footing moves, or buries,
1cause
can remove soil from bareath the pipe, causing
free spans of pipe*.
These unsupported spans
".-
scour at footings preclude construction of a

plot similar to Figure 10.4-4 for guidance.
In
clear.
",,,
is to changes
in flow velocity.
lack of coherence among the available data for

"
(10-8)
(D)O8
Structures Resting on the Seafloor
bottom-resting
"
the scour depth
placed in the North Sea concluded that a squarescour than a cylindrical one [Ref 10-25].
""
estimate,
for a pipe, whether it will be undermined or

not, can be estimated from the following equa-
shaped
-"
initial
good estimates of scour in waves and currents.

A study made of 13 large gravity platforms
A summary of observations on scour at small

footings and objects on the seafloor [Ref 10-1]
flow at
"shows that
objects placed in ocean water depths

less than 30 feet are buried very quickly.
At
In the study
all pipelines lying on the surface were underdepths of 60 feet or more in -relatively mild
mined.
One of two pipes burled initially to
dph
f6
eto
oeI
eaieyml
mid Oenvironments, scour caused settlement
and tilt-.
half a diameter was undermined, while the other
ing, but not burial of structures.
Field data
-"hese -unsupported spans of pipeline can occur
as a result of either seasonal or local scour.
10.9
~10-9
Datum
Soil: viet fine sand
D
(D 5 0 0.074 mm)
0.2to 1.64 ft
No Scout
flow
0.25D
O.5D
yB-0 .34D,
0.0
-4.9D,
ISD----o0.0
,S1
Figure 10.46. Scour development at a pipeline exposed to a uniform current of 1.2 to 1.5 ft/sec
(after Ref 10.26).
1000
OA
Position at initial
_
..........
.............
Scour begins, footing is

undermine a
,
down into the scour hole.
Scour hole depth

Sexceedsojc
......
.. ..... .
. , , . . .
. . . . ...
. ..... ....-......
v o
Figure 10Q4-7. Burial of a small object on the seaflbor from a progressive scour sequence.
suggest that,
latory
when steady or oscil-
in general,
currents
exceed
0.7 fps,
scour and eventual burial
Army Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC)

pier, 6 feet of sediment was removed in a
significant
is likely to occur.
48-hour period
Higher velocity currents will underuihe and bury

the
footings
more
rapidly.
Lower
in which the significant wave
height was 6 feet [Ref 10-11].
velocity
currents are not expected to result in signifi-
usually
in 'a
cant scour under the footing.
response
to changing
height.
10.4.4
These and other
data indicate that scour may occur very rapidly,
Time for'Scour Development
period
of
hours
or
Much evidence exists that the maximum scour

depth for a particular environmental
approached
evaluating
quickly.
relatively
scour,
future
condition
In studies
model
not
rapidly at first,
reaching
to
waves
scour
can
at
some
occur
In .
increase the
higher
flow conditions may
scour depth
itf the critical
flow velocity has been exceeded.
In another study, scour
pile' exposed
additional
On the other hand,
90% of the observed scouring
to weeks [Ref 10-27].
time,
response to a higher level of waves or current.,
has been estimated to occur In a period of days

at
in
the flow conditions, the faster the equilibrium

scour depth will. be reached; however,
is
days,
current velocity or wave,

Also, 'it.appears that the more severe
For scour development
occurred
near pipelines,
it
may also take less time to reach maximum scour

depth at high than at low velocities.
In one
75% of its maximum
depth after 1,000 waves and 1001 after 2,000 to
test
6,000 waves (Ref 10-28].
considerably more quickly at a higher. velocity
At the Oiaiond Shoals
Light a 'change in scour depth of 2 to 3 feet was

observed in a single day '[Ref 10-1S].
At the
series
maximmi
scour
depth
was' reached
(100 minutes at 1.7 fps)

than at
velocity (1,600 mInutes at 0.65 fps).
10-11
lower
MINIMIZING SCOUR
10.5
allowed
Minimizing the effects of scour is usually

accomplished in one of three ways:
areas where the
flow conditions
produ.ce scour,
(2)
tures,
employing
and
(3)
(1) avoiding
are
scour will
occur when current velocity or wave
If
nearslore
sonal
a structure
area
changes
known
is
to
10.5.2
Scour protection measures can be success-
be placed
in a
fully
to experience large
sea-
effective;
in sediment elevation,
installa-
taken
before,
after
protection
to soame-offshore
the
best
scour
instances.
To
be
most
immediately after,
structure
is
installed.
location
will benefit greatly by installation when sediment elevation is at a seasonal minimum.

Frehowever,
in many
scour protection should be installed
or
buried
quently,
..
Scour Protection Measures
tion can be planned for the most advantageous

season.
For example, pipeline to be laid and
from onshore
scour
significant
orbital velocity is greater than about 0.7 fps.

Below this value, reported scour has been negligible.
as
ceptible to snagging and damage by anchors and

commercial fishing equipment.
field data suggest
seafloor,
bottom
The primary disadvantage of the tripod is its open-framework and

height off the bottom, which make it more sus-
scour protection sea-
on a cohesionless
into the
'by the small reorientations.
sures.
that,
settle
Properly designed, the tIripod will not be harmed
likely to
using scour-resistant struc-
As previously mentioned,
to
occurs.
This will result in a generally stable
structure that. undergoes small settlements.
Since scour most likely occurs soon

installation, failure to install scour
In
early may limit its effectiveness.
the
case
structures,
prevention
of
offshore
waiting until
pile-supported
a large scour hole
technique is simply to anticipate the scour that

will occur and design to this level,
develops can also greatly increase the cost of

scour protection.
The hole may have to be
filled to provide adequate lateral restraint for
10.5.1
the piling before the scour protection system is

installed.
Retrofit operations are generally
Scour-Resistant Structures
much
Pi'es are
They
are
the
more costly than operations included as

part of an installation. For example, installing mats for scour protection for 18 footings
very scour-tolerant structures,

traditional
structures
used
in
'locations where scour is expected to be severe,
during
By anticipating the occurrence of scour around

the piles and designing accordingly, the scour
Everglades Shallow Water Range consumed approximately the same amount of time required- for
can re tolerated in most cases.
In applications
where lateral load on the pile is'high, the loss
installihg and aligning the footings themselves.

Had the scour protection been installed before
of
or
a significant amount of material from the

seafloor surface could significantly reduce pile
lateral capacjty.
This scour-caused loss in
lateral
recovered
resistance
may
through
use of
longer piles.
not
be
retrofit
during
required
operation
footing
for
at
the
installation,
cutting
and
the-
fitting
Port
time
scour mats
would have been substantially reduced.

However, it is extremely difficult to know
economically
larger 'diameter or
In these cases,
-how
reliance on scour
much
protection measures may be necessary.

Tripod structures (structures supported by
much scour will occur ania, therefore, how

protection
structure
system,
is
is
necessary until
after
the.
installed.
The scour protection

for complete protection, should ixtend
a frame with three footings) are well-suited to

areas where significant- scour is expected.
For
Since a tripod can have relatively small diam-
extending one radius from the edge of cylindri-
eter structural members above the seafloor, the

resulting scour will be small.
Footings or pads
ca-I
on
each
tripod
leg
can be
articulated
""
to the limit of the largest scour hole expected.
and
10-12
large
structures
(aID < 0.2),
protection
structures and one diameter

structures has been recomended
from angular
[Ref 10-22].
For
(a/0,
small
isolated
structures
1.0),
"
protection extending at least two diameters from

the edge of the structure is
pile groups in the ocean,
extend
approximately
group
recommended.
three
For
lower,
the protection should
one
radius
beyond the outermost
of
the
piles.
filter
filter
material.
pile
material
with
the
treated
previous,
as
the
base
A prope'rly graded, cubical or rounded
material
For large
requirements
with
specific
gravity
of 2.5
or
higher can be placed in layers as thin as prac-
structures, model tests can be used to provide a
tical but maintaining a minimum thickness based
reasonably good estimate of the extent of scour
on
for
The
designing
protection
measures.
Several
grain size of the

material
should
layer below [Ref 10-17).

be
placed
by
tremie
or
techniques used to minimize scour are described
similar method
to prevent
below.
the particles.
An example of a filter design is
It
must be
overwhelm
kept in mind
system
that
protection
from existing
example
the
is
Christchurch
profile,
Bay
Tower
circular,
insufficient
forces.
reported
for
An..unusual
shown
in Figure 10.5-1 for the Diamond Shoals
light
station.
used;
sizes are shown in Figure 10.5-2.
low-
severely
during
bed material
Filters
"proper
storms,
considerable
ing center eventaully resting on the sand.
performance
removed,
mined
with
skirts,
and
rein-
skirts.
was
barrier of
then
The
scour
grouted
sand bags
The
under
.a
last
the
departure
also
from
even the
standard
used
[Ref 10-15].
been
used
in
filter
the
In
at
the
Gulf
least
Steel mill
successfully
in
of
one
slag has
an
inverted
filter in-the North Sea [Ref 10-'31].
Also,
in
the Gulf of Mexico [Ref 10-5] where the slag has
information
been
used
as the
armor layer above an oyster
shell
the edge of the sand bags, which were likely to
more than 10 years.
be undermined.
layer,
it
has withstood the elements for
The inverted filter is usually covered with

a
The Inverted Filter. The inverted
used successfully
scour.
(Ref 1O-L9,
10-30]
layer of
storm
filter and protective rip-rap cover is a method

venting
however,
from
filters
[Ref 10-25] was that scour was occurring under
10.5.2.1
significantly
are common;
did not significantly affect

of
as backfill
protective
extending beyond the
.reported
depart
grain
case, oyster shells have been successfully used
in a grouted matrix was
placed outside the skirts,

footing.
pit
and
criteria
and filter material
[Ref 10-15, 10-17).
Mexico
but scour again took place and under-
the
footing
fitted
It
that
design"
requirements
stalled,
design
[Ref 10-25],
causing a "rocking" erosion' with only the footwas
filter
[Ref 10-17] are satisfied by the filter material
Shortly after placement
was 'undermined
The
scour' history of the
flaL-based footing placed in
27-1/2 feet of water.

it
is
that scour can
size segregation of
rip-rap,
for pre-
protective
conditions.
stone
sized to resist
A formula
for sizing
presented in Reference 10-12,
on variables of water velocity,
The filter consists of one or
weight,
and
stone diameter.
this
is based
stone specific
Similar formulas
more layers of cohesionless soil placed on top

of the bed material to be protected, each layer
and design curves are available in other references such as Reference 10-32). Other published
,being more coarse than the previous layer.' The

principle is,to produce a surface that will not
recommendatlons for sizing rip-rap (e.g., for

bridge piers) call for design to resist a flow
be
velocity at
least
undisturbed
bed
eroded
transition
by
scour.
Thi.
from material
size down to the size of

sufficient layers
filter, layers
as
large
may
as rip-rap
the b4M material
in
result
to prevent the smaller grain
times
as
layers.
Grading criteria have been established
'experiences
at
for this type of filter on the basis of particle
[Ref 10-15]
and
size
Mexico
.Each
In
each
adjacent
layer
successive layer must satisfy
This
in the
would
large as that sized on the basis of
expected
distribution
[Ref'10-4].
in use of a rip-rap approximately four
size materials from 'being leached out of their
[Ref 10-17].
twice that expected
area
velocity.
However,
the
at
[Ref 10-5],
Diamond
platforms
on the
basis of
Shoals
Light
in the Gulf of
this recommendation appear3
overly conservative for application to offshore
10-13
Notes:
A. 12' to 16" riprap max size and No. 4
siem min size; 50% by weight is 8" or
larger
B. 3" max size and No. 40 sieve min size;
50% by weight is 3/8" or larger
36ft
C. bed material; D5
...S .. :. .
~coarse
.s- .
...
graded riprap~...
..
fine graded filter
..
20 ft20f
original ocean bo~ttom, and top

of fall elevation - 4'M.L.W.
elevation of bottom of
brace - 52'9"
Na
0 i4. B
'6Note
'
'
Nt
-4 ft
approximatec ocean bottom
0.45 mmn
after scour
Figure 10.5-1. Example of an inverted filter for scour protection at an offshore structure (after Ref 10-15).
aIt
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
7.
GRA VE L-
..
SI
-_A
GRAIN S.Z9 IN ueaLIMIEES - 3U~fAV 0f SOaLS CLASSIVCATION
12 P4 111 1
17 L
11
t,______
so:
20t
7
V.. te
I3_
W~
Beds matria
".
+**
. .tI
Z..
"
.e 5d
Ia
X.
VV
A0
.
g?
ff:-v
'K
rv.
%
:::'
;,.
ih) 3
dSol
pcfcto'Da :.L&
Exml of~5a-itrmtra
d)
T,
..
AI A~L
Fiur
CD
-o
d3
r-
_mra
%S
1 3
<D
.a0-14
"ocean structures.
In these cases,
rip-rap sized
on the expected flow velocity without a multiplier,
or
sized
[Ref 10-5],
smaller
Open area should not exceed 40%.

e
area:
When adjacent to soils
than
that
value
containing more than 50% silt by weight and
has been successfully
used.
Until
having little or no cohesion:
more field data are available, maximum expected

'-"
flow velocity at the undisturbed bed, without
*-- .
Maximum open
the multiplier of two,
EOS
no .larger than the openings
in a should
no . 70 be
sieve
is.recommended for use in
Open area should not~exceed 10%.
design formulas for sizing rip-rap at structures

Various
in the ocean.
filter
10.5.2.2
been
used
[Ref 10-33],
Filter Fabric.
Filter, cloth has
successfully
to
sometimes
overcome
to
combat
scour
the
latter are costly,
and
most
to place a protective
rock layer over the fabric.
For
and sometimes
10.5.2.3
Fronds).
Artificial Seaweed "Polypropylene
Artificial
seaweed
has been used to
soils
10-10].
up through
the
rock cover.
Although a
vicinity.
encourages
Results
deposition
indicate
of
that
sediment
it
also
(Ref 10-35,
Fronds are more likely to be used in
variety of filter cloth materials'are available,

very little published information is available
conjunction with a filter fabric; how to keep

the lightweight fronds in place in harsh envi-
"regarding
ronments
their performance.
Filter fabric is
polypropylene,
two
basic
and
ana
including
polyvinylidene.
cloth
categories
nonwoven--only
fabrics are recommended [Ref 10-34].

The two primary requirements
are
the woven
for
filter
is
fabric,
primary
they
consideration.
cannot
be
Unlike
weighted
from
above by a dense surface layer because they must

be the top layer of protection.
No successful
preferred method is presently apparent.
filter
10.5.2.4
Flat Plate.
A horizontal
flat
cloth used 'in scour protection are: (1) it must

not clog and (2) it must have and maintain good
plate or collar with a minimum diameter of about

three pile diameters may be used to reduce scour
tensile
strength
Based
on
recommendations
in
clogging
seawater
and
sunlight,
at
tests,
the
following
attached
are made 'for
selecting
filter
cloth [after Ref 10-34]:
"eOnly
woven filter cloths with distinct openings are to be used.
"*Minimum
-
"
9
open area:
a pil'e.
The plate
to
slide down
the pile;
but should
rigidly
be free
to
the pile to adjust for any unoer-
mining that occurs.

Initial burial to one-third
of the pile 'diameter,. 'if possible, is recomi
mended.
Plates at or below the undistirbed bed
protect the seafloor soils adjacent to the pi'le
from pile-created
Equivalent opening size (EOS),

fabric should not be less than the, openings in a no. 100 sieve..
should not be
turbulence
and have reduced
scour by astmuch as 50% (Ref 10-36]

10.5.2.5,
Peripheral Skirt.
A method of
than 4%.
limiting scour around footings in nonsevere

scour areas has been, incorporation of a loriph-
Maximum open arei: When adjacent to granular

material,
ccntaining 50% or less silt by
weight and with little or no plasticity,
passing the no. '200 s'ieve:
eral skirt to penetrate the seafloor and prevent

minor scouring from undermining the focting. A
best
hold
the
available--woven
.'-.'-
The
to
tions are not available. The cloth replaces the

graded soil filter to prevent migration of finer
Although
place.
used method is
used
arrest erosion by lowering current velocity in
polyester,
""
in
been
the materials required to meet filter specifica-
made from various man-made materials,
""-.
""
fabric
commonly
have
drawbacks
that can be present with inverted filters.
"example,
methods
Open
area
should
not
be
85% sIze of material,,(me)>r

85- s.ize of materia(m)
.
...
less
peripheral skirt around small footings also

produces an anaerobir, environment below the
footing, whi ch helps prevent scour and settling
10m5
caused by burrowing sea creatures

This method,
however,
it
severe scour environments.

depth
of
beneath
the
the
and
possible
erosion
footing
will
of
of material
still
Subsequent,
burial
10-3.
cal
If scour exceeds the
skirt,
10-23, 10-25].
[Ref 10-37].
is not recommended for
occur
rocking,
the
footing
sedimentation,
modeling.
lines
of
[Ref
Publishing Co.,
New York, N.Y.,
may
then
10-4.
H. Breusers,
"Local
scour around cylindrical piers," Journal
Pipelines.
Pipe-
Hydraulics
G. Nicollet,
Research,
and
vol 15,
no.
H. Shen..
3,
1977,
pp 211-252.
supported by the seafloor surface can be

10-5.
unsupported
spans'
Protection
protection
of
production
Proceedings
of
the
Dobrovnik,
Yugoslavia,
around
protection
of
pipe.
pipelines
is
difficult.
from
If
system that uses a heavy cover over
C.J. Posey
the pipeline is less than 100% successful, an

unsupported span problem may be greater 'than
10-6.
would exist without protection.
sediment
Protection from local scour and from potential pipeline snagging is

tively permanent
(Ref 10-10]
scour
at
J.H. Sybert.
Ninth
dum M-42-81-3A.
"Erosion
structures,"
Convention,
1961,
in
IAHR,
pp 1157-1161.
Estimating and minimizing

seafloor
Civil Engineering Laboratory,
recommended for rela-
pipelines
oil
and
J.M. Atturio.
structures,
Naval
Technical Memoran-
Port Hueneme, Calif., Uct 1981.
by
of a complete covering of heavy concrete
10-7.
T. Yamamoto.
cats extending many diameters out from the pipe.
waves,"
This. s extremely costly.
Conference,
"Sea
bed instability
from
in Proceedings of the Ocean Technology

Houston,
Tex.,
1978.
(OTC
3262)
Seasonal' scour car remove an entire layer
of material over a large area and protection may

not be possible.
Much of this problem can be
avoided by placement of the pipeline after the
10-8.
seasonal
vol II.
H. Moshagen and P.L. Monkmeyer.

"Waveinduced seepage forces on' embedded offshore
structures," Civil Engineering in the Oceans IV,
scour has occurred when bottom eleva-
New
York,
N.Y,,
American
Society
tions are at a minimum.
Civil Engineers, Sep 1979, pp 758-773.
10.6
sures and effective stresses

Geotechnique, vol 28, no.' 4,
10-9. 'O.S.
REFERENCES
10-1.
C.F. Nordin
and
E.V. Richardson.
use of stochastic models

channel
Twelfth
"The
processes,"
in
IAHR Conference,
W.W.
Sayre
two dimensional
and
and
Madsen.
"Wave-induced
pore
of
pres-
i. a porous bed,"
Dec 1978, pp 337-
393.
in studies of alluvial
Proceedings
of the,
Ft. Collins, Colo.,
10-10.
I.B. Maidl.
"New experiences in scour
protection for offshore pl'atforms and pipe-
1967,. vol 2, pp 96-102.

10-2.
and
1974.
stresses due to
effluents,
Elsevier Scientific
creating excessive
means
engineering II,
tides,
undermined,
scour
Sport
coastal
settling,
of
Protection
Developments in geotechni-
estuaries,
from
follow.
10.5.2.6
R. Silvester.
engineering 48,
lines," in Proceedings of the Second Canadian

Geotechnical Conference on Marine Geotechnical
W.J.
Conover.
"General
Engineering.
Halifax,
Nova
Scotia,
Jun 1982.
stochastic model for the trans-
dispersion
of bed material
particles,"
in Proceedings
Conference,
Ft. Collins,
sediment
10-11.
of the Twelfth IAHR

Colo.,
1967,
and
J.A. Christenson.
Guidelines for predicting maximum nearshore sand
vol 2,
level changes 'on unobstructed beaches, Army

Coastal Engineering Research Center, Unpublished
Report.
Fort Belvoir, Va., Dec 1979.
pp 88-95.
S.
A,E. DOwall
106'16
10-12.
Shore protection manual,
Engineers,
Army Corps of
10-22.
Coastal Engineering Research Center.
Fort Belvoir, Va.,
Wave
idealized
1977.
Report
No.
1978.
10-13.
-
R.J.
Hallerme'ier.
Calculating a yearly
potential
around
Hydraulics Research
EX832.
Wallingford,
(Offshore
Energy
large
Station,
England,
Technology
Sep
Report
OT-R7826)
depth to the active beach profile, Army Coastal

Engineering Center, Technical Paper No. 77-9.
Fort Belvoir, Va.,
scour
shapes,
10-23.
A.E. DeWall.
Experiments on nearshore
scour around small footings and pile-supported
Sep 1977.
piers,' Army Coastal Engineering Research Center.

10-14.
S.C. Jain
and
E.E.
Fischer.
"Scour
Fort Belvoir, Va.,
Jul 1981.
around bridge piers at high flow velocities,"

.'.outnal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
10-24." T. Carstens.
interaction
by
vol 106,
Proceedings
of
no. HY11,
Nov 1980,
pp 1827-1842.
"Wave-seabed
Bijker
(Vol.
BOSS '76,
1,
structural
p. 830),"
vol 2,
in
Trondheim,
"Norway,
..
10-15.
R.C.K. Au.
Shoals
light
station,
Cape
-Hatteras,
North
Carolina, Coast Guard, Contract'Report. Atlanta,

Ga. , Dames and Moore, Sep 1975.
(Contract No.
10-25. R. Dhalberg.
"Observation
of
scour
around offshore structure," Det norske Veritas,
DOT-CG05-988)
in Proceedings of the Second Canadian Conference
Aug 1976.
Trondheim, Norway, Norwegian
Institute
of Technology,
1976,
pp 558-562.
Scour investigation Diamond
Rd
dE
aon
Marine
the Hydraulics Division, American Society of

Civil
Engineers,
Oct 1977,
p. 1209.
(With
10-26.
S.P. Kjeldsen, 0. Gjorsvik, and K.G.
Bringaker.
Experiments with local scour around
discussion in May 1979)
submarine, pipelines in a uniform current,
scour,"
C.J. Posey.
"Protection against underin Proceedings of the Ocean Technology
Conrerence,
Houston, Tex.,
1970.
(OTC
10-18.
natural
H.D.
Palmer.
objects,
Ph.D.
"University of Southern
California.
alf. 170'10-28._
Los Angeles,
D.R. Wells and

around
0
J.C Kreig.
offshore pipeline,"
oiCollege
Texas,
Journal
of
the
Division,
American Society of Civil
-/'Publication
vol 91, no.
PL1,
E.W. Bijker.
"interaction," in
Trondheim, Norway,
"Local
scour
Proceedings
near
of
the
R,.M. Sorenson.
Scour
a circular pile due to associated wave

Coastal and Ocean Engineering Division,
A&M
University,
Report
No. 113-COE.
Pipeline
Station, Tex.,
Engineers,
Jan 1970.
(Sea
Grant,
No. 208).
Jul 1965, pp 15-37.
10-0.10-29.
'-...R.
Blumberg.
extremes," Pipeline
Oct 1966, pp 31-34.
10-21.
River
Norway,
The Netherlands, Aug 25-26, 1971.
"rtramotion,
19.
Trondheim,'
Symposium on Offshore Hydrodynamics, Wageningen,
thesis,
Calif., 1970.
"1.
Laboratory.
10-27. H.N.C. Breusers.

offshore structures," in
1304)
Wave induced scour around
and artificial
Harbour
Mar 1974.
'C."
"Design
Industry,
Laboratory investigation of filters 'for

and Grenada Dams,
Waterways Experiment
Station,
Technical
Memorandum
No. 3-245.
Vicksburg, Miss., Jan 1948.
environmental
vol 25,
Enid
no. 4,
"Wave - seabed - structure
Proceedings of BOSS
Aug 1976.
10-30.
v'76,'vol
1,
Trondheim, Norway,
Norwegian Institute of Technology,

S,
Halifax,
Nova Scotia, Jun 1982.
"10-17.
Engineering,
Raudkivi and Ettma.

"Effect of sediment gradation on c6ear water scour," Journal of
and
Geotechnical
"."10-16.
C.J. Posey.
ments,' ",
Congress,
1976.
IAHR,
pp. 211-219.
I10-17
"Erosion prevention experi-
Proceedings
Kyoto,
of
Japan,
the" Thirteenth
1969,
vol.
2,
Diameter of pipe and pipe piles
015
Filter material grain diameter below

which 15% of the material falls
D50
Median grain diameter of a soil,

filter material [L]
Standard mesh size through

which 50% of material will
pass (vedian diameter) EL]
d85
Bed material grain diameter below

which 85% of the material falls
*scour protection for a semi-submersible drilling
dc
rig on the Nova Scotian Shelf," in Proceedings

of the Ocean Technology Conference,
Houston,
STex. , 1973.
(OTC
97. (TC181)d
Tex,1891)
Water depth of seaward limit of

"significant sediment level change, also
called the close-out depth EL]
'the
of
"Experience of scour in
R.N. Van Oijk.
10-31.
southern North Sea," Journal of the Society

Underwater
10-32.
C.D.
Mar 1981,
Technology,
stability
The
Ponce-Campos.
pp 18-21.
of
protective cover layers for embedded underwater

of
University
Ph.D.
thesis,
structures,
1978.
Mich.,
Arbor,
Ann
Michigan.
W. Abel.
and
N.D. Wilson
10-33.
"Seafloor
or
maximum sediment
which EL]
Water
level depth
change at
occurs
EOS
Equivalent opening size
C.C. Calhoun, Jr. Development of design

"criteria and acceptance specifications for
Gravitational.acceleration
plastic filter cloths, Army Waterways Experiment
Wave height [L]
10-34.
Station,
Technical
Miss. , Jun 1972.'

10-35.
Report
S-72-7.
Vicksburg,
and
[L]
E. Tesaker.
prevention system hydraulic
ICI
scour
flume study,
River
and Harbour Laboratory, Norwegian Institute of

Technology.. Trondheim, Norway, Apr 1976.
S. Tanaka
10-36.
and
N. Yano.
around a circular cylinder,"

the
Twelfth
IAHR
Congress,
"Local
J.S.'Muraoka.
seafloor installations,
Technical
Laboratory,
SHueneme,
10.7
Calif.,
H
e
Annual extreme wave height (significant

wave height exceeded 12 hr/yr) [L]
Wave length
10
Deep water wave length EL]
Ns
Sediment number (defined by Equation

10-7)
Specific gravity
Wave period [T]
Mean undisturbed current velocity or

maximum wave orbital velocity (LIT]
Lateral extent of scour from the pile

or pier EL]
y5
Maximum scour depth at an obstruction

HeCL]
Aymax
Maximum saasonal sediment level change
scour
in Proceedings of
Ft. Collins, Colo,
pp 193-201.
10-37..
Averagemoathly significant wave height
'(A0745085)
P.A. Tufto
Animal
undermining
of
Naval Civil Engineering

Port
N-1124.
Note
Nov 1970.
in unobstructed nearshore ELl
SYMBOLS
a
2
[L/T ]
S
Semi-orbital
length CL]
aaSei-rbital Clenh
Water depth el]%
"
Standard deviation of monthly average

significant wave heights [LJ-and grain
size distribution EL]
."
4.
'.,
Chapter 11
SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT
basically a question of whether the anticipated

loading will exceed the resistance available in
INTRODUCTION
11.1
This chapter provides a background decrip-
the
describe
tion of the major elements and processes influencing
offshore
slope
consulted
strategies for dealing with field situations are

proposed,
slope
but
methods
analytical
in
stability. problems
presented.
A structured
applicable
to
problems
that
detail
evaluation
of
offshore
tant
ically in Figure 11.1-1.

tial
"
sediment
the
evaluation
~~~~Sedinment
type
Loadier dylmLcd
Time effeca
sioe
Gi,
more detail
loading
is
desired
than is
loading and resistance,
The nature of the most impor-
functions
is
usually
uncertain.
present and difficult to predict--such as large

waves or earthquakes.
For designing,
probabil-
istic descriptions are often used as the basis
In any case of poten-
instability,
dealing with
Values for loading, for example, are almost

always associated with events different from the
These forces are shown schemat-
:::
if
for much detail.
sediment
relationship between loading and resistance in a

sediment mass.
for
11-2
however, there is great uncertainty and the need
The most
the processes is defined.
of these principles is the basic
methods
Between the terms
not
procedure
instability and based on fundamental principles

governing
important
analytical
and
presented in this chapter.
treat
are
References 11-1
mass.
slope stability problems in detail and should be
Specific
stability.
sediment
for defining
is
maximum magnitudes
for waves and
....,
eConColodatcn
,\ ~~
~
~ ~ ',, Wih (gravity)
,
. ..
.
- "Figure.1. 1-1. Loading and resistance forces ona potentil Sidemass.
11-1
"
earthquakes and for how often they occur.
Thus,
equipment and the large because enough data to
offshore
is
often
define their limits may not or cannot be taken.
terms
(dis-
based,
sediment stability
in
part,
analysis
on probabilistic
cussed i~n more detail in Section 11.3.2).

Describing values for resistance to
ings
requires
which
is
Stesting
an
evaluation
often complex,
of
to
considerable
and
Sskills.
"
determine
knowledge
considerable
quality of
The
The data inter-
stratigraphy
require
data upon which
the
he
Another
concern
Mass
"*
wide or
long
""
found.
11-3].
amount and
they
fall
is
resistance is
to
rotational
and turbidity currents.
the scale of offshore

meAsuring
several
miles
identify:
outside
Table 11.2-1 classifies most submarine
tional slides,
on
few
slides,
This is an artificial
The
6 side are
the
the
small
resolution
of
form
of
already occurred
the
survey
is
submarine
"Table 11.2-1.
"Type of
However,
geophysical
survey
because
record
"Rotational Slides
Shear displacement along one or several surfaces

or within a relatively narrow zone. Movement
"due to forces that cause a turning moment about
a point above the center of gravity of the unit.
Surface of, rupture concaves upward.
Movement within displaced mass such that the
form taken by moving material~or the apparent
distribution of velocities and displacements'
resemble those of viscous fluids. Slip surfaces
within moving material are usually not visible
or are short-lived. Boundary between laoving.
mass and material in place may be a sharp surface of differential movement or a zone of dis"tributed shear. Movement ranges from extremely
rapid to extremely slow.
Turbidity Currents
'material
Characteristics
Shear displacement along one or several surfaces
or within a relatively narrow zone. Movement
"predominantly along planar or'gently undulatory
surfaces.
Movement frequently structurally
controlled by surfaces of weakness, such as
faults, joints, bedding planes, and variations
in shear strength between layers of bedded
deposits.
Flow Slides
Mud, Silt', or Sand
S*rapid
Movement Models for Submarine Slides

in Soft and Loose Sediment
Translational Slides
of
distortion at the time the data are taken, such
Movement
(Slumps)
slide that has
almost always defined from
record *of an acoustic
(Section 11.6.3).
because
.".
--
transla-
flow slides,'
more than one type of movement.
feet
Both the smaller and larger slides may
be -difficult
sediment
classification as most actual situations involve
movements
to
offshore
movements into four simplified models:
based are very limited,

slides.
of
ments into a limited number of types (Ref 11-1,
interpretative
cases,
understanding
instability is aided by classification of move-
of marine geotechnology
technical
In almost all
FORMS OF INSTABILITY
stratigraphy,
and core sampling and
of recovered sediments.
p,retations
11.2
load-
Complete fluidization of sediment with Introduction of additional water. Mixing and resuspenslon of material during transport.
Extremely
rates of movement.
Transport of surface
from a large geographical area hundreds
"of miles to a new location is possible. A major
"geological event.,
11-2
"
records often give the incorrect impression that
common
the sliding process
irregular.
than is,
in fact,
horizontal
involves much more rotation

the case.
scale
If the vertical to
distortion
10 times)' is eliminated,
(typically
the actual
walls,
form of the
flat
slides,
slope
becomes
steeper
and mare
Consequently, rotational sTides tend
and
similar
shelf
features
than on
or plain areas.
the more
Many small-scale
slides, such as collapse of a pipe trench or the

slumping of a dredged face,
form,"
Translational Slides
Translational
to be more common on continental slopes, canyon
about
submarine slide is more apparent.

11.2.1
as
such as depicted by
11.2.3
are of rotational
Flow Slides
the enhanced profile shown in Figure 11.2-1, are

the principal failure mode on the continental
shelf and upper continental'slope, where most of
man's engineering activities
loading
waves,
mechanisms,
such
take place.
as
Flow slides develop when the shearing

resistance of the sediment is reduced signifi-
Many
earthquakes
cantly
and
other
can cause rapid sediment movement in a
translational
slow
creep
planar
mode.
Also,
movements
surfaces
where
probably
associated
they
take
with
strength
latter.
attributed
slides
is
example
shown
Figure 11.2-2.
of
multiple
the
seismic
Rotational
slides
by
shearing or srane
that
lead
to
such
strength
is
Sensitivity
to clays,
an extreme example of the

is
a property generally
while high potential for
distinguished by the mixed and c'3otic form of

the slide mass or, debris, as 'llustrated in
The second most common slide form is rotaAn
of
two most common sediment
liquefaction is identified with loose sands.

The geophysical record of a flow slide is
Rotational Slides
tional.
The
Soil liquefaction
This type of movement is also classified as a translational slide,

11.2.2
consequence
reductions are high sensitivity and susceptibility to strength reduction under cyclic loading.
on
anomaly.
*
characteristics
occur,
place
as
process.
rotational
profile
become
Figure 11.2-3.
on
Frequently,
the
flow slide
is
associated with much longer movement distances

than translational or rotational forms.
It is
more
O%"
3.9
%"
Figure 11.2-1.
Enhanced seismic profile of a translational sde.
11-3
33 46.3'E
1013
33 39.0'E
sec
33
km
53.11E
13?
_______________
42.3'N-_---
31
.0
37.7'N
4.SN31
31
330 46 5E
-1----
~~
.-
M~7- -j-?f7%
I
2
2:1
-ft
O&P
.-;r- -
30
Figire I11.2-2 Seismic profiles of a rotational slide.
VA 10xl.1
3 4
5kimeIters
*-600
1.0-
sslide
Oxfoce-
Figaro 11.2-3. Seismic profiles of * sajbmryine flow.

11-4
not always apparent where the slide mass origi-
(2)
nated.
tural
Since damage can occur anywhere between
the source and deposition areas of a flow slide,

it
in
the
stability
assessment
of
(3)
loads.*
currents,
Defining
is
not easy.
Each
design) is
Turbidity Currents
and the
expected at some uncertain period in

Analysis is usually based
on an evaluation of the risk defined by a probabilistic description of the external loading or
L
A turbidity current is a very fluid sedior sediment-laden
struc-
increment
varies with time,
the distant future.
ment
(4)
load
critical magnitude of the loading (that used for
region.
11.2.4
and
the
magnitude of the first three external mechanisms
is important to evaluate the entire extent of
movement
earthquakes,
by
water that flows down-
conservative
selection
of
forces
that
promote instability.
slope along the seafloor in response to gravitational forces.
Turbidity currents are an active
11.3.2
mechanism of submarine sediment transport.

The
many references that describe the mechanisr and
forms
of the deposits are discussed
ence 11-4.
For slope
It
in Refer-
stability assessmenit,
Probabilistic Prediction of Load

is
important to recognize that for most
sea bottom areas a finite probability exists in
which failure or instability can occur.
In some
turbidity current can be treated as an extreme

example of flow sliding [Ref 11-2).
There is no
sea bottom areas where an anchorage or facility
definite distinction between the slide types or

between the deposits they leave,
to natural processes
is
desired,
the probability of instability due
or anchoring
is high, and construction
activities
is
likely to increase
the risk.
Evaluating the risk of inducing a
slope failure can be treated as part of the
11.3
LOADING
design process, but it

A simplified
11.3.1
Loading Mechanisms
is usually very complex.
application
An accurate assessment of marine sediment

stability requires that the critical loads, both
References 11-5 and 11-6.
gravity and external,
variables is
be evaluated.
of offshore sediment is
an
influence
Knowledge
Instability
always associated with
increment of external
of
probabilistic
evaluation. is often necessary; these are discussed below and explained more thoroughly in
for
loading added to the
of gravity on the
sediment mass.
of
load
and
unlikely to be large.
TD make up
this,' probabilistic 'distributions
estimated for these variables.
resistance
soil
'illustrates
simple
case
can
be
Figure 11.3-1(a)
in
which
all
the
reliable estimate of the gravity loads depends
uncertainties in the load variables are combined
on an accurate definition of the'sea bottom and

subsurface geometry.
This can usually be accom-
wise,
plished with
their
high-resolution
into one curve of loading prob A1ltis.
seismic profiles.
The unit weight of sediment is
also required,,
'
another
all
possible
probable
curve
levels of
occurrence
as
shown
are
in
Like-
resis'ance
and
combined
into
Figure
1.3-1(b).
but reasonable estimates can often be made even
Figure 11.3-1(c)
if
tlonship between loads and resistance probabilities and shows that loading may exceed resis-
samples are not available.
Chapters 2 and 3
present data useful for making these estimates.

While many external
possible,
four. dominate
illustrates
loading mechanisms are
tance and
as the
instability, will occur.
initiators
of
that failure,
comon
in this cas
the cross-hatched area where the curve
only in special circumstances.
Failure
sources
of
""Man-made"
external
loads
are:
(1) waves,
can
occur
factor 'of safety
load.Ings including those from
even
is
though
believed
applied to the forces involved.,
construction and anchors.
11,5
a slope
This is repr sented by
sediment instability; others need be considered

The most coamon
rela-
'a
to
overlap.
ufficient
ave
been.
P(L)
P(R)
Load level - L
(a) Loading probabilities
(b) Resistance probabilities
(c) Risk assessment
Figure 11'.3-1. Probabilistic description of loading and resistance and risk assessment in
slope stability evaluation.
The
methods
for
combining
the
separate
In evaluating
the
hazard
probabilistic descriptions of each variable and
instability of marine
for
environmental loads (waves,
of
mathematically, describing the

interaction
between
the
relationship
loading and resis-
risk
and 11-6.
considered,
techniques
usually
involve
complicated mathematics or numerical solutions.

Collecting enough information
so that the
the
external
currents, and earth-
quakts) usually dominate any probabilistic-based
tance functions are described in References 11-5

These
a'ssociated with
sediments,
analysis.
When
it
is
one of
these
factors is
necessary to define not only
the likelihood of a particular level of loading

but also the probability of that loading occur-
probabilistic descriptions of each variable can
ring within a particular time interval.
be defined is
cases, this time interval is the lifetime of the
1am.
likely to present a serious prob-
Frequently,
the
amount
available for many variables is
of
information
so limited that
simplifying assumptions are necessary.

severely
ysis.
limit
a, rigorous
'This may
probabilistic
anal-
The results of such an analysis'will be
highly dependent on the quality of the data used
facility
In many
being evaluated or a critical shorter
exposure period.
A probabilistic description of
environmental loading data is available for many

offshore areas that have had historical economic
importance.
instance,
Sources
of
earthquake
data,
for
are listed in Chapter 2, Table 2.2-2.
as input.
It
lem's
is common for one or two of the probmajor variables to have a much greater
uncertainty
than the
other variables.
quently, the overall probability of failure can

be
dominated
factors.
by, the
For
Influence
example,
weight
as
of
slide mass and unit weight are
known within narrow limits.

probability
of
On the other hand,
particular
earthquake
load
occurring in a certain time period is likely to

involve much uncertainty, and in' probabilistic
analysis,
this term could dominate.
tive method, therefore,

tainty of
General
Data
and engineering
parameters
required
for slope stability assessment are among those

identified in Tables 2.1-1 and 2.1-2.
Methods
for in-situ measurement of these properties and

for ubtalning samples for laboratory testing are
presented In Chapter 2, while laboratory testing
to
determine
the
properties
is
discussed
in
Chapter 3.
An alterna-
is to assume that uncer-
the dominant
11.4.1
but the uncertainty may be small because
the voluie
IMPORTANT SOIL PROPERTIES
of one or two
sediment
component of the loading may have a large importance,
11.4
Conse-
variable dictates
the
11.4.2
Special Conditions:
Underconsolidated
Sediments
uncertainty of the complete analysis and to do a

conventional
deterministic
only the variation of
analysis considering
Uniderconsolidated soils-are soils that have
that dominant parameter.
not had sufficient time to consolidate under the
-~:.1;.,
weight of soil that lies above.

than
consolidated
normally
Stronger marine soils--heavily overconsoli-
They are weaker
soils at
depth and are likely to be more susceptible to
(Ref 11-7]
are
of
presence
rapid
in
bubbles
gas
the
sediment
or
unusually
an
shearing resistance.
anchorages
These are most accurately
determined by in-situ testing,
and
content
water
Softening of
such as piles and
be a problem for facilities
undrained
low
the
draining into
stiff marine sediments under dynamic loading can
of unusually high pore water pressure in
the
its
increasing
by
caused
lowering its strength (softening).
tion can usually be identified through measurement
soil,
the
pressures
water
At this time water is
loading.
mass
soil
pore
negative
An underconsolidatea cqndi-
(bubble-phase gas).
or
This usually occurs sometime
dynamic loadings.
the
and
sedimentation
repetitive
from
*after the loading as a result of dissipation of
condition
underconsolidated
an
loss
strength
experience
Two mechanisms that can
instability problems.
produce
in particular--can also
dated silts and clays,
same
the
It
tions.
but determining
installa-
in permanent or 'long-term
be
also
may
for slope
problem
stability.
either from shallow penetrating core samples is

also possible--though more difficult (Ref 11-8].
Bubble-phase gas can be identiaied without
deep
cores
or
measurements
in-situ
LEVEL OF ANALYSIS
11.5
because a
It
very distinctive acoustic pattern of wipe out or
lower
tinctly
acoustic
associated
velocities
common
to
use
simpler
analytical
problems than might be used onshore.
This occurs because of the dis-
of this gas.
is
models to analyze slope stability for offshore
"white" area on the seismic record is indicative
for
reasons
this
practice
Two major
the
are:
relative
lack of detailed information necessary for most
with these sediments.
complex methods of analysis and the flat shape

11.4.3
of many offshore slides.
of Sediments
infinite slope method of analysis [Ref' 11-2] has
Response
is
an
since
important
of a
aspect
Waves
loading.
scenarios
and
storm-caused
being analyzed as shown in Figure '11.5-1(a) and
sediment
is
involve dynamic
two
of
the
When
are
shown
used.,
ship
movements
ultimately
involve
rotational
components,
in Figure 11.5-1(b), a method
as,
including
More involved analytical methods,
finite
element
analysis,
suc'h as
may be useful
in
offshore soil-structure interaction problems but

have little practical
Response of saturated soils to dynamic and
the
repetitive loading has been studied extensively

clays,
slumps
for this type of slide.
moment equilibrium as well as force summation is
Similarly, many loads
activity are also dynamic
resisted by anchors).
[Ref 11-9, 11-10].
usually sufficient
loading mechanisms,
dynamic types of loading.

man-made
marine
earthquakes,
three dominant natural

induced by
often been used for nonrotational slides. This

method sums forces acting on the soil layer
to repetitive or dynamic loading
many offshore
(e.g.,
As a consequence, the
Repetitive and Dynamic Loading Response
Most
soft
marine
application in assessing
otential for offshore Sediment instability.
silts,
and loose sands suffer some reduction in
strength and stiffness
under such loading.
An
SITE INVESTIGATION
11.6
extreme example is soil liquefaction--an almost

total
loss of strength and subsequent
loss of
11.6.1
General
resistance to shearing that can occur in loose

sands under certain conditions.
The planning and equipment used for in-situ
Although silts.
testing and sample collection
and clays generally experience a smaller loss of

strength,
this
loss can still
lead
are discussed
to bottom
in Chapter 2.
information
This section disby
site
survey
instability [Ref 11-11] and soil mass slides or
cusses
the failure of foundations,
techniques used for slope stability assessment
11-7
gathered
for site surveys
*1
(a), SunumAioa of forces
(b) Sumanution of forces and moments
Figure 11.5-1. Summation of forces and moment for stability analysis.
offshore
in
relation
lat '
to
techniques
for
stabilized
which most stability assessment techniques hay,,
minimize
been developed,
sonar.
used
equipmnt
surveys,
for offshore
and the
present time,
will
land survey,
conventional
of
At the
ends
cant
will
Comparable detail about the sediment

surface through the use of bottom
profiling surveys and side-scan'sonar.
and
the extremes
to
side-scan
methods
ignore
for
of the slide mass
A detailed examination
disclose
often
the
Therefore,
causative
definition
slope
stability
assessment.
slope instability features may be so
large they cannot be easily or accurately identified 'using conventional sensors and line
The solution to this problem is to
spacing.
insure that sufficient data are gathered over a
wide area and to examine the data from a large,

as well as small,
perspective.
A mosaic of
Much less detail about the sediment

properties because the depth of corer
penetration will be limited.
(3)
of
part
Some
(2)
platform
of these areas should always be a very signifi-
ate:
More detailed information about the
internal structure and stratigraphy in
t'e sediment mass through the use of
seismic
profiling.
high-resolution
analytical
mechanism for the slide.
commonly geneer-
(1)
record,
should not be ignored.
compared to a
an offshore survey,
the
some
identification
sampling, offshore site investigation strategies

are very different from those on land.
in
sensor
slide end effects for calculation purposes,
associated with soil
high cost and limitations
corrected
noise
Although
in geophysical
Because of the differences
and
profiles or other techniques that examine groups

of survey lines together are helpful.
Preliminary Studies
11.6.2
Site investigation methods used for 'siope
stability assessment must be capable of detecting small,
as well
subsurface
features.
that
are
important
location
are too
identified
using
as very
large,
However,
or 'too
notmal
these
frequencies
or
features
include:
higher
resolution
Even the bathymetry
a' particular
ating hevards and areas of potential instability

because the scale is too smell (l.|.,
covers a
be
equipment,
large area)
Alternative methods that increase the ability tu

detect
most areas of the
that exists is usually of limited use in evalu-
shallow to
seismic
ocean bottom are unmapped.
features
some
in evaluating
small
Except for bathymetry,
surface and
from
alternative
sensors,
A
mapped
11i8
and may be based on interpretation
,.
wr-' limited data.

.
areas
of
specifically/
the ,ea bottom hive been

to
identify
slumping
or
'I
other stability
done,
hazards.
Where
this has been
the overall objective has beer. related to
offshore
study
petroleum
of
development,
Mississippi
11-12).
As
offshore
sediment
collection
Delta
such
as
mudslides
the
[Ref
a consequence,
and
the assessment of
instability usually requires
interpretation
of new data for
controls
on
navigation.
accuracy is
gation
velocities
ments.
The
vertical
scale
limited by knawledge of wave propathrough
Unfortunately,
the water and sedi-
sediment velocities are
isually well-known, and the vertical scale

must be based on assumed prooerties.
Sediment
not
sampling and testing can be done to improve the
each study.
accuracy of these assumptions but is seldom used
11.6.3
because of high cost and lack of adequate ship

facilities.
Consequently,
interpretation of
seismic records is somewhat qualitative. Deter-
Acoustic Surveys
A brief discussion of seismic profiling and

side-scan
sonar
regional
acoustic
survey
surveying was presented
Section 2.3.
This
section
methods
for
mination
in Chapter 2,
discusses
seismic
of
soil
acoustic properties
What
an
individual
from a high-resolution
profiling and side-scan sensor techniques with
not only on technical
respect
nition
to
their
role
in
assessing
slope
stability.
11.6.3.1
Seismic Profiling.
the broad-band
In
general,
systems,
is
dis-
cussed in'Reference 11-14.

ii
able
interpret
to
seismic record
depends
skills for pattern recog-
but 'on ability to translate pattern

recognition into a framework of knowledge about
geologic
processes.
Figure 11.6-1, the sea
For
example,
bottom and relat
in
*ly
known as sparkers and

offer the advantage of better resolu-
horizontal or parallel subbottom reflectors are

easily identified.
In Figure 1L6-1(a), a large
tion at shallow sediment depths (high frequen-
slump feature is obvious because of the break in
cies)
along with deeper penetration (low frequencies).

The narrow-band sources, such as the
surface
3.5-kHz
systems,
other large subsurface features are also as easy
shallow
seafloor depths but are limited as to
boomers,
give
very high resolution at
depth of penetration.
The
profile
reflectors.
and
the discontinuous deeper

mAny' other cases, faults and
In
to identify as this slump.
On Figure 11.6-1(b),
the slump features are much less clear and can
interpretation
of
high-resolution
only
be
identified
because
of the
very high-
seismic rucords is not covered in this report,

The seismic Interpreter must be highly skilled
resolution capability of the 3.5-k1iz system and

skills of the interpireter. It, s notable that a
and experienced
broad-band seismic- survey would likely miss this
apparent
characteristic
through
to discern
features,
which
behavior
individual
real
often
of
layers.
wave
features from
result
from
propagation
Features
indicated
by side echoes and point source reflections are

Identified by pattern recognition, such as cuts
through
other
layers
or
hyperbolic
feature completely.
These two examples
tllus-
trate the high value of careful seismic profilIng in identifying slope failure features.
tool
is
powerful
in
evaluating potential
This
for
slope Instability.
shapes.
The influence of weather and other distur-
Pitfalls In seismic Interpretation are discussed

in Reference 11-13.
bances on equipment is another consideration in

seismic profiling offshore. If the sound source
Assuming
that
a seismic
record
has been
or
receiver
Is
supported on the
sea surface,
interpreted so that only the direct reflections
then sea state will have a direct Influence on
are being used,
the record.
the record must be related to
potential stability problems.

The record itself
will be highly distorted In scale, usually with
towing the seismic equipment at a constant depth

below the sea surface. Other systems not only
tow at depth but compensate for any up and down
vertical
10 times.
exaggeration
of
approximately
The horizontal scale usually Is known
with a high degree of accuracy because of modern
S~~11.g
movement
electronic
of
Some' systems compensate for this by
the
towed
processing
equipment
of
during
th, signal.
the
These
""
14-1Soometers-*
so
0
40
30
20
10
(a)Broad band qwaker surwy record showing

a large slump feature.
0
V.E.x 10.1
0-
P7p
3 kilometera
'
~ e'* ~
E~ ~ .
11'i
l*0
!~
~'D~
_
V~*7
-30O0
OS5-
slides
sli&e surface
(b) 3.5-kHz marvey rtemod showing nsmll-scale

shalow didiag.
Figure 11.6-1. Examples of high resolution seismic records of s'lides caused by slope instability.
11-10
equipment
features
result in higher quality

records and enable more data to be collected in
a given amount of time because adverse sea
wher. gravity-piston corers cannot reach much of

the failure surface, the samples from these
conditions
methods and assumptions:
have
corers can provide useful data by the following
less effect on record quality
and will not curtail operations as often.

They
are, however, more complex and expensive, and
fewer of these are likely to be available for
(1)
If the sediment deposit is normally

consolidated and of uniform composition, the testing of soil from more
shallow depths 'can be used to determine soil properties at the depth of
the expected failure surface.
These
assumptions should be validated and
can be, to some extent, by a highseismic survey.
(2)
Where sediments
are not uniform,
high-resolution seismic records can be
used to define surface outcrops of the
same soil layer that exists along the
failure surfaces buried deep with the
slide mass itself.
These surface
outcrops are sampled by a gravity
corer.
Samples from these cores are
tested at the state of stress estimated for the inaccessible material
along the failure surface. These test
results are then assumed to apply also
to the inaccessible failure surface.
use.
"11.6.3.2
Side-Scan Sonar.
Side-scan sonar
have recently become very popular for
hresolution
systems
assessment
hazardous
of slumping and other potentes1y

surface
features.
Figure 2.3-1
(Chapter 2)
illustrates side-scan sonar use.

A
more complete discussion of its use in identifying slope failures is given in Reference 11-15.
Side-scan sonar records can be very detailed,
and minor' surface features that would be missed
by most other systems can be identified with
this system . This makes it a valuable tool for
assessing other failure evidence, such as small-
S.
scale surface features, i'ndicative of instability problems.

Side-scan sonar can be used
effectively to augment records obtained by other
These methods are used in the following

example, illustrated by Figure 11.6-2. to evalu-
high-resolution
ate a slide whose failure surfaces are too deep
seismic
sensors
that
have
detailed the subsurface stratigraphy.
for
sampling.
a record
"from
11.6.4
Sampling of Sediments
of
seafloor
describes
shallow
required
to recovejr
cost
and
,e:;"
the
is
sampling along the slide failure

not possible except at the scarp
Chapter 2
exposed above the slide.
deep
equipment
tively short cores is used to define the engineering properties for analysis of this slide
coring'
soil samples.
Because the
of
sediment
mass,
stability.
corer penetration
is
A. set of five rela-
mass.
The core locations are selected to sample

the following parts of the feature illustrated
in Figure l1.,6-2:
done using a minim number of samples obtained

from less
expensive gravity-piston
corers.
.depth
In weak sediments, gravity-piston corers
can occasionally obtain samples as deep as 30 to
csundisturbed
45 feet in the seafloor, although in many types
of
slide
surface
obtaining 'good quality,

continuous
"samples by conventional offshore drilling is
high, much slope stability assessment work is
is developed
slope margin
slide area. Because the depth of core penetration is much less than the thickness of the
Obtaining a sample of sediment from the sea

bottom is a prerequisite for quantitative evaluation
Figure 11.6-2(a)
of a continental
A.
signifi-
The surface sediment at the same water

as the central part of the slide,
but offset to' one sside and out of the
slide zcne.
This is assumed to be
sediment of the same type
that existed in the slide mass at that
elevation before the slide.
cantly less.
Most submarine slides extend to
much greater depths than this.
Therefore, the
S~to cannot provide specimens
gravity corers
from
B. Th, surface 'sediment on the slide

scarp, above the slide mass and assumed
be a sliding surface.
much of the slid- mass., And large parts of the

failure surface are inaccessible.
However, even
C.
1111
The
upper
part
of
the
slide
mass,
---
------- ----
--
--- crest
1"
(a
iw
b Pa ve
eros
"
i0
fault
"
Figure 11.6-2 Examples of a shallow coring plan used in stability analysis.

0. The
lower
part
of
the
intact
slide
offshore slope stability and slump hazard potential are presented as follows:
moss
E.
The debris
slide.
Tests
run
on
fan
that
flowed
from
the
(1)
these
five
cores
provide
insight
into the variability of the sediment

type at these locations and identify the effects
"of aisturbance on
These data provided
S
"
TrshSurvey
A
Level I Survey
(described
Table 11.7-1)
is based on use
remotely obtained
data only.
sampling or testing of sediments
done.
The basis of the investigation
is definition of previous sliding and
existing morphology associated with
sediment instability by pattern recognition in survey data.
The Level I
may be appropriate for causeways,
anchors,
and pipelines,
or
where the
short-lifetime
installations
time
installa
whre the
soil physical properties.

a basis for further testing.
to identify engineering properties at the failure isurface and allow more accurate identifica-
time
tion of soil
in
of
No
is
failure resistance along' the slide
and
cost -of
a -more
detailed
survey is not justified by the potential cost of a failure.
surface.
In a majority of slides, ' shallow cores
obtained by gravity-piston corers can provide
(2)
useful information for submarine slope stability

analysis.
However, some submarine sediment
A
Level 1 jSurvey
(described
in
Table 11.7-2) includes use of remotely
obtained
data
plus
gravity-piston
ciated w'ith large uncertainties (which cannot be
coring.
Shipboard
and
shoreside
laboratory measurement of sediment
properties from core samples provides
values for quantitative analysis of
The Level II Survey
bottom stability.
is intended fo- siting of more important facilities, such as those where
failure threatens life, loss of very
expensive equipment, or loss of a
better
critical
deposits are too complex to be evaluated adequately by such simplified and relatively inexpensive methods.
In these cases,
evaluated)
rises
sharply
the risk assowithout
more
capability
when
needed.
extensive analysis.
in
*
11.7
EVALUATION PROCEDURES
investigations.
Two levels of investigation procedures for
"conducting
i
site
investigation
Figure 11.7-1 illustrates key features used

interpretation of seismic data for these
to
evaluate
-11-12
Table 11.7-1.
Level I Slope Stability Survey
Operation
1. Collect all
existing data
"2.
Comments
Bathymetric maps can be used to establish a base for the survey.
ipate conditions which might occur.
Other information is used to antic-
2.Seismic
survey
a. Extent
b. Spacing
c. Instruments
"3.
Interpretation
of seismic
"data
Survey should cover the entire area of anticipated project and extend a minimum of 112 mile beyond
the project limits for a large area of interest. Other information, especially bathymetry, is considered to extend limits beyond the minimum.
If suspect bottor. features are encountered, the project
limits should be extended to define these areas.
Surveys should be run on an intersecting grid of lines. Strike (along the contour) and dip (perpendicular to contours) lines should be run to the degree possible. Line spacing depends on project
size and scale of potential slide features; 100 meters would be a typical maximum. Navigation
control must be sufficient for this.
Both narrow-band (3.5 kHz) and broad-band (sparker or'boooer) systems should be used if possible.
If
only one is used, the 3.5 is preferred in shallow water and the high energy sparker or boomer in deep
water. Side-scan sonar is recommended as an additional sensor on all surveys to better define small
surface features.
Interpretation of seismic data should concentrate on recognizing features which are associated with
previous sliding and on existing morphology associated with sediment instability.
If natural
instability is a potential problem, slopes will have failed in the past. The following features
should be identified.
(a) Offset reflectors [Figure 11.7-1(a)]. A primary indicator of submarine slides is offset bedding
or reflectors; a similar feature also of concern is "offset along a fault:" Bubble-phase gas (d)
may appear similar to an offset. Depositional features (i) may also show an intersection between
their internal reflectors and the original surface upon which deposition occurred. Such contact is
usually not as sharp as for offset reflectors.
(b) Surface to
ra
[Figure 11.7-1(b)].
Some surface irregularity is usually associated with a'
slide, and
ld show on any of the acoustic sensors but may be more distinct on the lower energy
12 kiz or 3.5 kHz.
Breaks in surface topography often coincide with offset reflectors unless the
slide is a relic and has been covered by subsequent sedimentation. Side-scan sonar data can confirm
the surface topographic feature and extend the definition of the break on either side of the seismic
profile transect.
-d
(c) Failure surface (Figures 11.7-1(c) and 11.2-1].

Failure surface for a slide mass often shows
reflector. Even in cases where this is not true, the offset reflectors and surface topography as
usually indicate location of the failure surface or zone with sufficient accuracy.
(d) Gas [Figures 11.7-1(d) and 1i.6-1(a)]. Gas in solution within the sediment pore fluids cannot be
detected and does not affect strength or stability; gas out of solution, however, usually causes a
significant decrea!e- in shearing resistance of the sediment. Bubble-phase gas can be detected on
seismic records by the interruption of reflectors caused by the drop in velocity of propagation
(Section 11.4.2.1), which produces voids or "windows" in the record. Wenever bubble-phase gas is
detected, the potential for bottom sediment instability is high. The acoustic voids associated with
bubble-phase gas are distinctive but these voids can be caused by other features such as shell layers
or rough bouldery deposits.
""(inpsitlonal features [Figure 11.7-1(e)]. Depositional features indicative of sliding include
turbdte
n
br is flows, which are of concern because: they may pose a hazard if they
are deposited rapidly and might damage or cover a facil;ty; and they indicate that an area's upslope
is unstable and losing m-terial.
Layered depesitional features, such as turbidities, may be confused
.with offset reflctors-- ere the layered depositional beds lie against the side of the formation
which the deposit was laid.
(f) rpetive.
When interpreting seismic profile data it is unusual to concentrate only on the
dip-linirecods, which show the profile of any slide along Its axis of movement. A complete interpretation should include the perspective of the cross lines as well. Confusing and inconclusive
data will often be clarified by this perspective.
For example, depositional features often look
like slides in one direction but rarely are confused if intersecting data are used for a true perspective. Although considered here primarily as,a Level 11 operation, side-scan sonar data areespecially useful in adding another perspective to a seismic profile.
"-.
"upon,
(g)
e2!sst2! survy.
If the interpretation of a seismic survey shows an ilportant feature
the survey limits or if debris deposits are made which ca from a source
area not covered by the survey, the survey should be extended.
A Level I Survey is intended as an expeditious examination of a site (justified by economics and
saving of time), but some problems cannot be adequately evaluated using only the Level I survey data.
The following are likely to be of this type: heavy loads placed on the sediment, excavations,
dynamic loading. and scour. To evaluate most of these problem requires analysis that Includes
relatively accurate values of sediment shear resistance. If strength values can reasonably be
assumed, the analysis procedures described for the Level 11 Survey (Operation 6) can be applied.
One other special problem is the possibilit, of slide features which are very much larger or much
smaller than the extent or scale of the seismic survey used (Section 11.1), which must always be
considered possible.
"whichieteds outside
4.
Special
problems
11-13
.9o
Table 11.7-2.
Level II Slope Stability Survey
Operation
Comments
1. Collect all
existing data
2. Seismic survey
Same as Level I.
3.
Same as Level 1.
Interpretation
of seismic data
4. Sediment sampling
a. Extent
In addition to the requirements for a Level I survey, this survey should include use of side-sca"
sonar to develop a complete surface mosaic over the area of interest. Both narrow-band and broadband seismic systems are required. A depth compensated seismic system (Section 11.6.3.1) is
recomended whenever surveys are done in rough seas.
Sediment sampling should be defined through item 3 above. As a minimum, one sample should be
obtained from each identifiable sedimentary unit within the study area if accessible to shallow
samlers. For any slide or suspected slide area, minimum sediment samples would be obtained from
areas:
b.
Type of
sampling
5. Sediment testing
a. Shipboard
b. On-shore
laboratory
a adjacent to the slide in undisturbed material

a within the slide mass
at the slide scarp if it can be located
* within the slide debris
See Section 11.6.4 and Figure 11.6-2 as an illustration.
Piston gravity corers are preferred over pistonless corers.
If sediment cannot be recovered by
corers, box samplers or grab samplers should be used. In-situ testing, although more expensive and
not a type of samplng, is useful in shallow deposits where the tests could be run. Free fall
penetr%%eters can also provide some information.
As soon as practical after being brought onboard ship, the recovered core samples should be run
through vane shear strength and water content tests. These tests should be done at a maximm spacing
of approximately 1 meter and at every distinct sediment layer.
The most important sediment property for use in stability analysis is shear strength. In addition to
the shipboard tests, laboratory strength tests should be done on each distinct sediment unit. Triaxial compression tests, either drained or undrained with pore pressure measurements, are preferred
to define (1)the effective stress strength parameters c' and # and (2) the rate of strength increase
with increasing
6. Analysis
7. Safety
seafloor depth. Other tests which may be important in specific cases include
consolidation-compression tests and dynamic or cyclic loading itrength tests.
The following basic identification tests should also be done on every distinct sediment unit
and at a maximua spacing of 1 meter:
e water content (compare with shipboard measurement as an indication of post-sampling disturbance)
a liquid limit
* plastic limit
* grain size distribution
grain specific gravity (less frequent interval)
Specific stability analysis should be done for:
a slide features identified from the seismic survey data
a staep slopes or'other potential slide areas
* seafloor areas which will be supporting an applied load or subjected to excavation or scour due
to planned operations
The following need to be determined for these stability analyses:
a Topograpiy and stratigraphy of the study area (data from seismic survey, corrected to true
scale, provide this Information).
a Engineering properties for each distinct sediment unit (data from~sedlment testing program will'
provide this information).
a Shear strength relationship for the sediment units on the potential failure surfaces.
External loading which -isappropriate for th lifetime of the facility (Section 11.3).
E
0 Appropriate analysis method selected for the evaluation (Section 11.5).
Shear strength can be defined using either a shear strength profile or a set of strength paramters
(c, *) for each-sediment unit. Where data from shipboard measurements do not extend deep enough into
the sediment to profile, the parameters must be estimated from empirical correlations or triaxial
testing. The method of analysis used depends on the assumed shape of the failure surface and
mechanism of loading. Analysis may be necessary which assures that the sediment resistance will
involve no excess port pressures or the amount of excess pore pressure can be estimated. The following are stability analyses, that are commonly performed with 'a reference to where further explanation
may be found:
static analysis, translation - infinite slope equations [Ref 11-2]
e static wave analysis, rotation [Ref 11-16]
e wave loading [Ref 11-17]
oarthqua;e loading [Ref 11-2, 11-18]
An acceptable level of safety fcr slope stability of an offshore sediment deposit Is not easily
defined. A factor of safety based on the relationship of forces driving a slide and the resistance
mobilized by the soil can be established. However, so many assumptions are made on both driving and
resisting forces that the accuracy of the factor is questionable. Aprobabilistic analysis may provida better' insight Into the actual safety involved in a slope but this also requires detailed analysis. A proper evaluation should be made with slightly conservative, but consistent, essumtions
for all forces.
In any case, quantitative analysis of an offshore sediment stability problem must be
recognized as approximate and imperfect.
11%14
ce
%:%
"
'-,'
-b
(a) Offset reflectors
(b) Surface topography
(c) Failure surface
acuustic void
(d) Bubble-phase gas
(e) Depostional feawturs
Figure 11.7-1. Features on seismic profiles indicative of bottom instability problems.
11.8
REFERENCES
11-1.
AlW
R.L.
11-5.
Schuster (ed.).
ysis and control,

Engineering,
Landsi,des:
Anal-
A. Ang and W. Tank.
Research
Board.
11-6.
J.R. Benjamin
ability,
11-2.
engineers.
Co., 1970.
Morgenstern.
"Submarine
slUmping
and the initiation of turbidity currents," in11-7.

(ed.).
A.F.
Marine
-'"ae GotecIhnique,
A.F. Richards
Marine
e.) Geotechniqu,,
Urbana,
Ill.,
University
of
Illinois
Press,
1967, pp 189-220.
Landslides
11-3. O.J. Varnes.
Slope movement types and processes,
tion Research Board,
"'1978 pp 11-33.
Special
Chapter 2:
Transporta-
Report
No.
176.
statistics,
New
York,
Sangrey.
D.A.
fth
at"
G.V. Niddleton and A.H. Bouma.
and
, r,,11.15,
1973.
and
C.A. Cornell.
decision
N.Y.,
for
McGraw-Hill
'Marine
Probcivil
Book
geotechnology2,hrs
vol 2,
and B.F.
Clukey,
E.C.
Sangrey,
11-8. D.A.
Molnia.
"Geotechnical engineering analysis of
underconsolidated
sediments
from
Alaska,"
Eleventh
Offshore
Technology
Conference,
1979,
pp 677-682.
Turbidity
deep
water sedimentation,
Society
Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists.
mAngeles, Calif.,
and
state of the art," Marine Geotechnology,

1976, pp 45-80..
Houston, Tax.,. vol 1,

11-4.
New York,
National Academy of Sciences/
Transportation
1978.
N.R.
Probability concepts
in engineering planning and design.

N.Y., John Wiley and Sons, 1975.
of
11-9.'
D.A. Sangrey et al.
Los
sands,
silts,
"Cyclic
loading of
and clays," American Society of
Civil Engineers- Specialty Conference
on Earth-
quake
Engineering
and
Soil
Dynamics,
vol 2,
1978, pp 836-851.
11-15.
B.8.
grating
angle
11-10.
H.B.
Seed.
faction effects
on
"Evaluation
of soil lique-
level ground during earth-
Prior and J.M. Coleman.
retrogressive
subaqueous
Marine
landslfdes
slopes,"
Geotechnology,
"Disinte-
on very-low-
Mississipi
vol 3,,
no. 1,
Delta,
1978,
pp 37-60.
quakes," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering

American Society of Civil
vol 105, GT2,
11-11.
"*
B.C.
currents
Banks
1979,
Heezen
and
M. Ewing.
and, submarine
earthquake,"
vol 250, 1952,
Engineers,
p. 201.
slumps
American
"Turbidity
and the
Journal
N.R. Morgenstern. and V.E., Price.
11-16.
"The
analysis of the. stability of general
slip sur-
faces,"
Geotechnique,
pp 79-93.
1,
yol 15,
no.
1965,
-'-,
Grand
Science,
pp 849-873.
11-17.
D.J. Henkel.
causing
submarine
"The
role
landslides,"
of
waves
in
Geotechnique,
vol 20, 1970, pp 75-80.
11-12. Environmental information on hurricanes,

deep water technology, and Mississippi Delta
11-18.
mudslides in the Gulf of Mexico,
of
Bureau of Land
M.A. Hampton et al.
slope
instability in
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM
Tenth
Open File Report 80-02.
1978, p. 2307.
11-13.
La.,
P.M. Tucker and J.J. Yorston.
in seismic
tion
New Orleans,
interpretation,
Geophysicists,
1980.
Series,
E.L. Hamilton.
"Prediction of
Conference,
vol 4,
11.9
SYMBOLS
vol 2.
1973.
11-14.
the Gulf of Alaska,"
Technology
Pitfalls
Society of Explora-
i4onograph
Offshore
"Quantitative study
Effective soil cohesion [F/L 2 ]
Effective soil friction angle [deg]
in situ
acoustic and elastic properties of marine sedi-
ments,"
Geophysics,
vol 36,
1971,
pp 266-284.
,'.
o. .
7*
_________________________..____
1,.1.
FILMED
DTIC

Handbook For Marine Geotechnical Engineering

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Handbook For Marine Geotechnical Engineering

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

L/'

Karl Rocker, Jr.

DEEP OCEAN TECHNOLOGY

NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

nnt hasboen apprxod

public releoaa cd gala; lt.

DATE RECEIVED IN DTIC

REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED NO.

PHOOGRAPH THIS SHEET AND RETURN TO DTICDDAC

,D'CUMT ROCESSING SHEET

OF THIS PAGE Wkw DWO

REPORT DOCUMENTAT;ON PAGE

2. GOVT ACC2SSION NO. 3. MECIPICNT'S CATALOG MU&IUER

Handbook for Marine GeqL echnical

REPORT 6 P919100 COVERED

ORG. REPOrT NummnR

6. CONTRACT 0OR GRANT NUMOER(.J

Kar~l Rocker, Jr., Technical Editor

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME

Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory

11I. CONTROLLING OFFICE MNAM AND ADDRESS

MONMITORING AGENCY NAMCE& ADORESUIP1

Naval Sea Systems Command

PROGRAM ELEMEINT. PRO ECT. TASK

SECURITYV CLASS. (of 060 .pMtj

OISTRIUUTION STA'?CMENT lotI thll R*p.fI)

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (04 Me obeftec owo,"

KEY WORDS (COg.U...

geotechnics, marine soils, sediments, engineering properties

Brian Watt Associates, Inc., Houston, TX

Woodward-Clyde Consulta nts, Santa Ana, CA

Brian Watt Associates, Inc., Houston,

Chapter 2 - SITE SURVEY AND IN-SITU TESTING ................

Factors Influencing the Site Survey ..........

Information Sources ..................

REGIONAL SURVEY .................

PRELIMINARY STUDY .........

Survey Line Spacing. ..............

SITE-SPECIFIC SURVEY .....................................................

IN-SITU TESTING ...........................................................

2.6 SEISMICITY SURVEY .......

Chapter 3 - LABORATORY DETERMINATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES ...........

Classification by Origin ..............................................

INDEX PROPERTY TESTS ............

Unit Weight .........................................................

SOIL CLASSIFICATION ......

Special Considerations ...............................................

General .... ......

DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE ...........

General .................................................. ......

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ................

Chapter 4 - SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS AND DEADWEIGHT ANCHORS.

PROPERTY CORRELATIONS ......................................................

ENGINEERING PROPERTY TESTS ..................................................

Specific Gravity .............................

EXAMPLE PROBLEMS ..........

ohesive Soil .....

PILE FOUNDATIONS AND ANC14CRS .................

Problem 1 - Simple Foundation on

Pile Types ...........

DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR SIMPLE PILES IN SOl